Is this a sensible strategy?

[noelmm]

Hi everyone,

 

It's been a while since I did any server work (server 2003) and thought I would take a look at server 2012 to get back into things (I have been given a free license for data centre edition for 2 years). I have been reading around and purchased a couple of books before I dive straight in so that I can have some idea of what I am doing.

 

I am now at a point where I am just about to setup my servers and have come up with the following server plan

 

 

Server 1: Domain Controller 1 Roles - AD, DHCP, DNS

 

Server 2: Domain Conroller 2 Roles - AD, DHCP, DNS (failover server)

 

Server 3: Roles - File server, Print server, Remote desktop server

 

Server 4: Roles - Backup File and Print server

 

Server 5: Roles - SCCM, WSUS

 

 

Does this approach look ok or is there something you would change and if so why?

 

This is going to be a long learning process where I am sure many mistakes will be made but that's part of the fun.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your feedback

 

Noel

[LukeC]

I would personally not have file and print services on one server as i find print servers need rebooting more often. Also with regards to remote desktop server i would look to create 2 VMS A session Host and Gateway.

[LukeC]

I would personally not have file and print services on one server as i find print servers need rebooting more often. Also with regards to remote desktop server i would look to create 2 VMS A session Host and Gateway.

[noelmm]

Hi Luke,

 

 

 

Thanks for the advice. I'll take a look into what you have advised.

Noel

[noelmm]

Hi Luke,

 

 

 

Thanks for the advice. I'll take a look into what you have advised.

Noel

[Fazza]

The 5 servers you have listed is basically what would have been done if you were using Server 2003 on physical machines 'back in the day'. Nowadays with the arrival of Virtual Machines you tend to split the roles out in to individual servers so it would look something like this:

 

Server 1: Domain Controller 1 Roles - AD, DHCP, DNS

 

Server 2: Domain Conroller 2 Roles - AD, DHCP, DNS (failover server)

 

Server 3: File server

 

Server 4: Print server

 

Server 5: Remote desktop server

 

Server 6: Roles - SCCM (WSUS is controlled by SCCM on an SCCM server and must only be installed and not configured as SCCM takes over that bit)

 

 

No need for a 'backup' file and Print server as if you want a backup of any of your servers you'll need to use Replication on another Physical server with Hyper-V on it so in the event of one of you replicated servers failing, you can failover to the replicated servers.

[Fazza]

The 5 servers you have listed is basically what would have been done if you were using Server 2003 on physical machines 'back in the day'. Nowadays with the arrival of Virtual Machines you tend to split the roles out in to individual servers so it would look something like this:

 

Server 1: Domain Controller 1 Roles - AD, DHCP, DNS

 

Server 2: Domain Conroller 2 Roles - AD, DHCP, DNS (failover server)

 

Server 3: File server

 

Server 4: Print server

 

Server 5: Remote desktop server

 

Server 6: Roles - SCCM (WSUS is controlled by SCCM on an SCCM server and must only be installed and not configured as SCCM takes over that bit)

 

 

No need for a 'backup' file and Print server as if you want a backup of any of your servers you'll need to use Replication on another Physical server with Hyper-V on it so in the event of one of you replicated servers failing, you can failover to the replicated servers.

[TechMonkey]

I'd agree with Fazza and LukeC. Depending on how much you want to deal with you could throw a second File server in as I tend to split file servers by use, so staff, student and shared. Alternatively use the second file server to play with DFS replication.

[TechMonkey]

I'd agree with Fazza and LukeC. Depending on how much you want to deal with you could throw a second File server in as I tend to split file servers by use, so staff, student and shared. Alternatively use the second file server to play with DFS replication.

[Davit2005]

Depending on backup software this may also require a re-boot occasionally.

 

I would't class replication as a backup, for DR yes, for file restore/archive no.

[Fazza]

Depending on backup software this may also require a re-boot occasionally.

 

I would't class replication as a backup, for DR yes, for file restore/archive no.

 

I might have misunderstood 'Server 4' then as the way it's written it sounded to me like a backup file and print server rather than a backup server for backing up the file and print server on - that's why I suggested Replication.

[Michael]

The only thing I would say is go for Server 2016 - it's absolutely solid, no problems at all.

 

I have a similar setup to Fazza, almost identical. The only thing I haven't really explored too much is Hyper-V replication.

 

I'd still have a physical DC in there somewhere too, why? I've seen it so many times where the only physical server is Hyper-V and yes you've guessed it, it's domain joined!

 

If the only virtual DC fails, then you're screwed basically! Definitely one to think about!