I have been tasked with getting a Windows Server for a small office. We are looking at a Dell Poweredge tower with redundant power supplies. It will basically just be a file and application server. They will have a piece of software that run on a SQL database (I think the free one will be fine) and is shared in a small office, about 10 users. I am looking at Server 2008 Standard so that we have the option to add a terminal server down the road if needed. I do not expect to create a domain at this point. Question is, should I virtualize? I will like to have to most options for a quick recovery if something eventually goes kapoot. So for that reason it seems like maybe virtualization is the way to go. Obviously re-doing a server is a big deal so I want to make the best plan before we purchase the unit. Any suggestions? Thanks, Jim

with standard edition you (unless you buy extra licences) are restricted to the host as hyperv (or more generic virtualization role) server and in the guest everything else. while you do gain some flexibility with backup (depending on your approach, vm shadow copy vs single files) and the option to move that machine on another host at a later time easier then if you had to migrate eg when your server hardware gets old/unrelyable, you still have all roles in one guest (which aint recommended, but i am aware that theres the reality of money). id personally would go for the vm approach any time for the flexibility, but be aware it is not the better approach just because its virtualized

Just be aware that you should never run dcpromo on a computer with SQL Server, either to promote to a DC or to demote. If you install SQL Server on this machine, when you later decide to create a domain, install AD on another server. Richard MuellerMVP ADSI

Hi, With virtualization, you can combine all your servers into one powerful computer, that will save you cost and make the management easy. So virtualize them or not is really depends on your requirements. By the way, if you want to virtualize them, please remember that only enable Hyper-V on the host machine and then install/enable roles/features/application with the separate VMs running on the Hyper-V computer. Best Regards, Vincent Hu

I have worked with the free HyperV Core (if I am naming it right) that installs a basic 2008 server with no gui only command prompt and then installed the HyperV Manager on my laptop. Its ok in that I didn't need a second license but I believe it has its limits. If I bought a second standard license then I could have a gui and the windows backup to save the vm's with, yes? Is that the best licensing strategy? And as Richard mentioned in his post, I would not be able to promote the server to create a domain unless I added a second or actually third server. What would be the best licensing strategy? Just continue to buy additional license as needed? I could see it eventually growing this way. Doesn't one of the server versions give additional server license rights? Thanks, J

Yes. Enterprise edition allows you to run four servers as vms without buying additional licenses, and Datacenter allows you to run an unlimited number (but Datacenter licensing is a bit complicated).Bill

Hello, just take into consideration 2 things: 1. If you plan on backing up the VM as a way of securing your data, what happens if a user loses a file on the network? You would have to recover the entire VM just for 1 lost file? It would roll everubody back to that point in time just to get back a file. Or you would have to recover to another VM, pull the file, etc. that's a lot of work to recover just one file. 2. If you plan on having a terminal server, I would separate that function. Remember who's going to use the terminal services... regardsChazzie / IT Manager Advanced Door Controls, Inc.