I couldn't find any direct reference to this, probably, because it's so obvious and everyone knows the answer Would appreaciate if anyone can point me in the right direction... Wehave ahome network consisting of an SBS (Windows Server 2004 for Small Business Server) and several clients (6 or 7). SBS is the Domain Controller and is mainly used for self-hosting Exchange for our own email, but also serves anti-virus, DNS, DHCP and is the main gateway to the Internet. Now, I need to start using a cleint-server program that requires SQL Express 2005 as the DB, which, logically, should reside on the SBS, with the client portion on my client - a laptop. The question is: will installing SQL Express 2005 mess up the Exchange? And: what version of SQL do we already have on the server that Exchange currently uses? One would hope this informtaion should be readily available in the list of Services, or some other such inventory list of services running on the server, but I was unable to find any hint of the SQl identity currently installed on this server, other than there is a "SQL" of some sort... There is no clustering, and HA is not a major concern. I just want to make sure that I can get SQL Express on the server we already have without messing up anything that's already there. Any info/help would be GREATLY appreciated! Sincerely, SvetlanV

Hi, Exchange doesn't use SQL but an ESE database. But installing sql on a server which is already dc, filserver and exchange server is not recommended. Personally I would install SQL on another machine or if you want to try SQL 2005 you can even install it on your laptop if you have enough resources. Regards, Johan i: www.johanveldhuis.nl

Hi, As Johan said, the Exchange used ESE database which is different from SQL server. Although we do not recommend install SQL 2005 on the same box with Exchange 2003, it is still possible for us to install them together on a same machine. If we do so, performance will be the big concern, as both applications require high CPU/Memory and disk utilization. It will be better if you install them on separate machines, because Exchange is an intensive CPU/Memory and disk I/O consuming application. Thanks Allen

Thank you folks, this clears things up a bit. Yes, you were right, it was a typo, the Server version, of course, is 2003, not 2004. I guess this answers the main question I had: is there a known incompatibility between the two, or any specific script one must follow to install them together. Looks like there is none. Of course, I understand that there will be resource competition, like everything else in life, if you take something from one and give it to the other, the first one will be less happy than before I guess I'll install SQL Express and see how unhappy that makes Exchange, and if it really makes a difference, I'll think of another solution. However, another idea comes to mind, and of course, your valuable commentary or thoughts are very welcome: Rather than buying another, separate physicalserver for SQL, what if I install a Virtual Server on the server box that I have now (it's a fairly powerful box), set up two Virtual Machines, each running Server 2003, and install Exchnage etc (whatever is on the current server) onto one, and SQL or SQL Express on the other. Let the VS handle resource sharing rather than having Exchange and SQL fight it out. So the questions are: is VS better (faster, better performing etc) at handling two VM's than Exchange and SQL would be co-existing on one single server? and: If it is, would VS with two VM's still be better than Windows Server 2008 with Exchange + SQL, which is coming out shortly (right?), or am I better off waiting for the Server 2008, and then setting up Exchange and SQL on it. I'm sure your perf teams are already testing these variouscombos and have some, at least preliminary, ideas as to which one is better. The bottom line here is very simple: I need to findthe bestsolution long-term (3-5 years out), which does not involve any additional physical equipment. I live in a house with a family, so space for our IT is at a premium Reinforced floors and a separate air conditioner is not an option ... And lastly, I know I am not the only person struggling with these issues. As you may have already guessed, I'm not asking these questions because of my curious nature: I have a small business that I'm trying to run from home (small office, whatever), and thought that SBS would be the answer to the most basic small business IT problems: I need my emial to communicate with my customers, and I need a database to contain my inventory. Doesn't get any more basic of a scanrio than this. AndI KNOW I'm not the only one, because, for one, I've sought advice on this issue on other IT forums, where I've seen this same questionbeing among the most frequently asked ones. So, it sounds like an authoritative White Paper from you, folks, would do much good to the huge small business community, who are having these kind of issues - just like me. "Not recommended" which means "Buy another server" is often not an option not only for the reasons of the server cost, but it's the space, the heat, and plain human interaction required to babysit yet another server. Microsoft has long solved all these problems - at least, tried - in software, so teach us right here, on ms.com, how to do it, what to do, what not to do, what to watch out for etc. "Buy another server" should bethe absolutely last resort when ALL ELSE is PROVENNOT to work. The entire "if-else" sequence before that is what you need to tell us. And it's OK to say "Try it on your own risk, we have not tested this, but it just MIGHT work" - after all, that what most of the White Papers out there already do and say. I know that customer feedback has always been highly valued by Microsoft, after all, that's whatdetermines each andevery bit of data and information that goes on the Golden RTM disks and ms.com itself. Please, pass this request on to your PM's. Or, if this White Paper already exists, please, give me a link, and put it in the FAQ or highlights etc on the Exchange and SQL sub-webs on ms.com, right there on the home page, in everybody's face. thank you folks, in advance. I will be looking for your thoughts in the next few days. SvetlanV

Hi, I have to say it is also not recommended to install virtual server instances with Exchange 2007, although not prohibited. The reason is similar. While running virtual servers, high CPU/memory usage is expected, especially when running high CPU/Memory utilization applications. Disk I/O is also a concern. Of course, compare with Exchange+SQL on the same machine, the VS is the best practice. Additionally, no matter what the version of Windows Server is integrated with Exchange+SQL, the effect is the same. That is determined by the hardware. Thanks Allen