Merging and/or upgrading two servers

[smurfomatic]

This is our current setup:

 

Server1 (Exchange, Primary DC, Web [but only for minor pages such as OWA], staff network drive and some "older" staff profiles) is a 2003 virtual server hosted on a 2012 machine called Hyperv.

 

Server2 (most staff & all pupil accounts, former host of pupil email accounts but these transferred to Gmail, pupil network drives) is currently a physical 2003 server but this machine is due to be disposed of when we rearrange our classrooms in the summer.

 

My first thought was to create another virtual machine on Hyperv to host Server2. However, thinking again I can see the benefits of consolidating the data onto one virtual server (I cannot see the need to keep them separate as the server configuration was always confusing to me, no duplication of data and there is no software installed on Server2 that needs retaining) but I'm unsure of the best way to do this - other than copy the data over and redirect everything.

 

Is there a simple way to change any references to Server2 to point to Server1? Not only in account settings for profiles, but anything else that may be looking for one machine when it's no longer there. This would mean only one DNS, DHCP and WINS server on the network but consolidating onto one physical machine removes any pretence of redunancy anyway...

 

The final plan would be to upgrade the virtual server(s) remaining from 2003 to 2012 as that has been planned for some time (chaos over previous two of the previous three summers have prevented this!) - hopefully this would be a straightforward process but if the plan above goes well I only need to do it once!

[3s-gtech]

How big is the school? That could potentially be some major I/O for a single host, let alone VM. One of the reasons for virtualising is to spread services across multiple separate servers. Much less likely to have conflicts and instability issues, plus updates and upgrades can be planned and implemented more easily. To drop back to one VM would be a mistake IMO. Your system redundancy would be a bit scary too - a fault with that VM or host and *bang*.

[smurfomatic]

The school isn't that big - 150 or so active PCs / laptops, the majority being staff laptops which are logged on with the same account every day, or ICT suites which are in the same situation.

 

Currently there is no redundancy - if Server1 goes down, no email etc. and if Server2 goes down no user profiles. Would you recommend merging the two machines and then having two identical VMs running? Not sure if we can afford to spend the money on enough additional storage to fit the data on twice.

[3s-gtech]

What I'd actually recommend is an extra host, running a few VMs with the services split down a bit, with redundancy. That obviously has a cost implication, buy with the retirement of one server I think it would be a mistake to have a single point of failure.

[smurfomatic]

Unfortunately there's no way the budget will stretch to a separate host - it's enough of a battle to get some additional HDs to expand the storage of the current one! Something to look towards in the future, but (given the premise we're staying with one host) which would be the better option? Two separate VMs duplicating the current situation, or merged into one VM?

[pantscat]

I'd advise separate VMs - ideally Exchange and IIS should be separate from your DC roles, and then perhaps another VM used for file/print.

 

Keeping the roles separate like this is better practice, and also means that you don't lose everything should you need to perform some maintenance on any particular server.

 

As @3s-gtech said, another host would be ideal to give you some resilience, but I completely understand the budget situation!

[3s-gtech]

What spec is your old server you're looking to retire? You'd be amazed what Server 20012 R2 will run on.

[smurfomatic]

Thanks @pantscat - the plan is that, next summer (was supposed to be this year but plans change...) we will be moving to an external email host - either Office 365 or GAFE - so at least that will reduce the potential problems caused by an outage on the server. It'll just shift it to potential outage on the internet instead!

 

I'll stay as-is and move Server2 as a separate VM, when some generous person donates a few thousand to the IT budget we can get some upgrades...

[smurfomatic]

The "old" server is a Proliant ML350 G5, twin Xeon 2.5GHz, about 9 years old. The spec's probably fine, but the "sister" machine died a slow and painful death three years ago (HD controller went and I spent two weeks trying to resurrect it) and this one is getting to the point where something is likely to go wrong and cause even more grief!

[pantscat]

One option would be to get a 'cheap' third party warranty on the G5, then if it did go bang you could get it repaired (PM me if you want any advice on this) - spec wise it'd be fine as a standby host (assuming it's got enough storage and RAM).

[smurfomatic]

We'd have to expand the storage to get it to host both servers, as it's pretty much full now and needs another 1TB+ to accommodate the other one. I will be keeping the machine around any way, I'll look into what it'll cost to get it up to spec.

[pantscat]

If you can upgrade the VMs to 2012R2 that'll help with your storage - Deduplication is your friend - https://redmondmag.com/articles/2014/03/13/data-deduplication-in-windows-server.aspx

[smurfomatic]

Thanks@pantscat, I'll look into that.

 

Just need to figure out the licencing situation for 2012 now...as I understand it, Standard licence gives us one host and two VM licences, is that right? So I'd be able to upgrade both Server1 and Server2 to 2012 without paying for more?

[pantscat]

Spot on!

[3s-gtech]

As I suspected, your old server may have some life left in it You can pick up some upgrades cheap on Ebay, or speak to a supplier like ICT Direct who deal in refurbed and some older kit. You may be surprised how little it'd cost to get that running. We currently run some production servers that old - when they pop, I can replace the broken parts or bin them.