This is something we did last year and are still implementing. We ended up getting an iSCSI SAN and I currently have a two node cluster that is also hosting MS virtual servers with all the data sitting in the SAN. This worked for us as we also needed to replace quite a bit of our hardware and I was able to shut down quite a few older servers and move them onto two new clustered servers.
Clustering is included with the Enterprise and above version of server 2003/2008, but you would need to purchase two server licenses. Clustering requires some type of shared storage. Russ Clark ________________________________ From: Mike Semon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:31 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Cluster, virtual servers, or traditional? You might look at iSCSI or NAS solutions for storage if you do not need the performance of a Fibre Channel SAN. There is a big cost saving and in the right environment they work great. Virtualization such as VMware will be of benefit if you want to consolidate servers. If you have a bunch of servers that run at 10-15 % utilization then it makes sense to virtualize them. Also easy to deploy new servers from templates which saves lots of time. If you have small number of servers which have heavy utilization then stick with traditional hardware. Mike ________________________________ From: Tom Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:05 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Cluster, virtual servers, or traditional? Hi Folks: Over the next year I'll be replacing/moving around most of my servers here at HQ. Currently I have "traditional" hardware servers. I'm wondering at what point to I need to move, if at all, to clustering/SAN/virtual servers. At my regional sites (all 50 staff or less) the model will remain a traditional server hardware. However here at HQ (6 buildings) I am not so sure. I have about 400 staff members here using several servers for e-mail and file and print, as well as the typical variety of utility, web, and so on servers. None of the servers consume a huge amount of disk space for files or for e-mail (fairly stringent disk space quotas for e-mail). Suggestions? I'll be moving to Windows 2008, and I thought I read that you can cluster 2 servers without additional licenses. I'm not sure about SANs, since that my be overkill here, and I haven't done anything with virtualization yet (other than desktop). Reliability is important, but so is cost. Being a non-profit, I don't have lots of funds for extra hardware unless I can justify it. Comments and suggestions appreciated. Tom Miller Engineer, Information Technology Hampton-Newport News Community Services Board 757-788-0528 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
