What types of servers/server roles are complimentary and can be consolidated on the same machines?
Is there a list anywhere?
I have many questions. For example, what roles go together on the same machine for Remote Desktop Services? Can I (/Should I) put a Session Host, Connection Broker, Web Access, and Gateway server all on the same server? Is there a best practices recommendation?
Or could I/should I put an IIS and SharePoint server on the same server? Should I add a Lync Server as well? Or is it better to put SharePoint on its own? What about SQL server? Exchange seems pretty straightforward with its 3 server roles, but how does
one know whether all these sever types play well together?
Does Microsoft offer any ideas? If the point of VMs is to maximize the resources of each box so that they don't go to waste, what about maximizing those same resources within a server? Clearly, each server costs a server license. How does one know which
types play nicely together?
I'm wondering if this is just a dumb question from a relative newbie to Microsoft's cutting edge technology offerings, but I'd really like to know if there are, again, general best practices to follow...
Thanks!
Noel Stanford Oveson
jeremyNLSO
MCTS, MCITP, CCENT, CNE, MCSE, CLSE
Berlin, Germany
September 21st, 2012 2:31pm
Hi,
Here are my general views
It's not a good practice to put multiple roles and applications on a single server just for a sake of saving costs. In my perception, there are some disadvantages if you do so.
Disadvantages might be
Hard to troubleshoot issuesApplication conflictsscheduling downtime's would be a challenging taskpatch management ( patch conflicts )etc...
That said, it again depends on discretion of IT management of the organisation. There is no hard and fast rule which says, do this or don't do that. If you have limited resources and you need to manage within the limits then you wouldn't have any choice
but to put multiple roles on a single server.
As you have multiple questions on different products and technologies, I would suggest you to post them in their dedicated forums wherein you would likely to get in depth answers/inputs.
Remote Desktop Services (Terminal Services) forum
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/winserverTS/threads
TechCenter > Lync Server Forums > Planning and Deployment forum
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/ocsplanningdeployment/threads
TechCenter > Exchange Server Forums > General Discussions forum
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/exchangesvrgeneral/threads
SQL Server > SQL Server Forums > SQL Server Setup & Upgrade forum
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/sqlsetupandupgrade/threads
TechCenter > SharePoint Products and Technologies Forums > SharePoint 2010 - General Questions and Answers forum
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/sharepoint2010general/threads
ThanksRegards, Santosh
I do not represent the organisation I work for, all the opinions expressed here are my own.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties or guarantees and confers no rights.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
September 21st, 2012 3:15pm
Yeah, but that's sort of the point, Santosh, right? That there are all these technologies (read: "all these forums") and no sort-of central concept of what plays nicely together and what doesn't.
And it's not just about saving server licenses, though that would seem to be a valid method of reasoning. Rather, there's a sense that (like I said before), the concept of VMs is based in a desire to maximize resources. Well, Microsoft has all these products
that my clients are interested in taking advantage of, and I'm just trying to figure out how best to deploy them.
It makes absolutely no sense to use one server license per server role/type--are we agreed? So, no one would think to deploy one server as just a DC, one server as a DNS server, one server as a DHCP server, one server as a certificate server, one as a RD
Session Host, one a RD Connection Broker, etc. ad nauseum.
Of course, there could be large enterprise environments where this might be entirely valid, but for many (if not most) circumstances, there would just be no reason. And that's why the servers started getting consolidated into VMs in the first place, is it
not?
So the question remains: Is there a good link--or does Microsoft provide guidance--for best practices for consolidating different server roles/types on common hardware?
Do you know of anything (blogs or white papers) or anyone which/who may have already sorted these kinds of things out?
Precisely because of the cross-technology concepts, posting in each of the forums might not provide the best answers...
Cheers.
Noel Stanford Oveson
jeremyNLSO
MCTS, MCITP, CCENT, CNE, MCSE, CLSE
Berlin, Germany
September 21st, 2012 9:06pm
Agree with you Noel.
However, when it comes to server manageability I wouldn't go with clubbing multiple roles on a single server and over burden that.
In my previous employments, I had to put multiple roles on server/s; like I mentioned before there are some disadvantages however that being said, we should not install IIS on DC or say Lync server role on Exchange server.
Here are few things which I had implemented earlier and it worked great.
DC + DNS + WINS + DHCP + KMS
Additional DC + File Server + Print Server ( FS on DCs is not actually recommended ;-))
WSUS + AV Server
All Roles of Exchange on one Server
IIS + SQL
Etc...
As for Best Practices, I will need to search a bit :-) I will post back If I come across any such references.
Precisely because of the cross-technology concepts, posting in each of the forums might not provide the best answers...
You might want to try posting each technology specific questions in those dedicated forums as well and I am sure, i would likely to get some useful inputs/thought :-)
Regards, Santosh
I do not represent the organisation I work for, all the opinions expressed here are my own.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties or guarantees and confers no rights.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
September 21st, 2012 9:30pm
Agree with you Noel.
However, when it comes to server manageability I wouldn't go with clubbing multiple roles on a single server and over burden that.
In my previous employments, I had to put multiple roles on server/s; like I mentioned before there are some disadvantages however that being said, we should not install IIS on DC or say Lync server role on Exchange server.
Here are few things which I had implemented earlier and it worked great.
DC + DNS + WINS + DHCP + KMS
Additional DC + File Server + Print Server ( FS on DCs is not actually recommended ;-))
WSUS + AV Server
All Roles of Exchange on one Server
IIS + SQL
Etc...
As for Best Practices, I will need to search a bit :-) I will post back If I come across any such references.
Precisely because of the cross-technology concepts, posting in each of the forums might not provide the best answers...
You might want to try posting each technology specific questions in those dedicated forums as well and I am sure, i would likely to get some useful inputs/thought :-)
Regards, Santosh
I do not represent the organisation I work for, all the opinions expressed here are my own.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties or guarantees and confers no rights.
September 21st, 2012 9:40pm
Is there a list anywhere?
I have many questions. For example, what roles go together on the same machine for Remote Desktop Services? Can I (/Should I) put a Session Host, Connection Broker, Web Access, and Gateway server all on the same server? Is there a best practices recommendation?
Or could I/should I put an IIS and SharePoint server on the same server? Should I add a Lync Server as well? Or is it better to put SharePoint on its own? What about SQL server? Exchange seems pretty straightforward with its 3 server roles, but how does
one know whether all these sever types play well together?
Does Microsoft offer any ideas? If the point of VMs is to maximize the resources of each box so that they don't go to waste, what about maximizing those same resources within a server? Clearly, each server costs a server license. How does one know which
types play nicely together?
I'm wondering if this is just a dumb question from a relative newbie to Microsoft's cutting edge technology offerings, but I'd really like to know if there are, again, general best practices to follow...
Thanks!
Noel Stanford Oveson
jeremyNLSO
MCTS, MCITP, CCENT, CNE, MCSE, CLSE
Berlin, Germany
Much of this simply comes with trial and error unfortunately. MS can give you supported configurations, case studies can give you examples of what works well, but ultimately your designs are your own and may have both positive and negative outcomes.
However, answering each question mark you have with my own opinions:
1. When running a large Remote Desktop Services farm, I prefer the following setup: 2 Remote Desktop Gateway servers in a farm configuration, 2 Connection Broker and Web Access servers, and X Session Host servers. In other words, I dedicate
the session host servers since they have the most load, and add them to a farm in a fan-out design. I implement 2 servers with web access and connection broker for redundancy and think these roles are good candidates to host together. I dedicate
two gateway servers in a farm configuration for redundancy, and prefer these to be standalone so I can administer them separately without disrupting other services. In smaller environments, I will host gateway with connection broker and web access but
still prefer dedicated session host servers.
2. SharePoint relies on IIS of course, there are no compatibility issues with hosting other IIS sites on a SharePoint server. Ultimately the decision rests on load and administrative burden/downtime in my opinion. I recommend multiple SharePoint
servers in a farm for large deployments, but again it depends.
3. I personally prefer Lync on a dedicated server due to its real-time requirements.
4. I almost always prefer SQL on a dedicated server, primarily for availability. You don't want to take down your database server when you are patching SharePoint, for example.
5. Exchange roles are fairly well documented and I recommend reading the relevant documentation on co-hosting server roles. In general, I prefer two models for exchange: 1. Scale-out deployment with Hub Transport, Client Access, and Mailbox in
a DAG configuration with multiple servers, or 2. Dedicated servers for Mailbox, Hub Transport and Client Access co-hosted. But as above, this is strongly dependent on your environment and goals.
I guess this is why IT Architects make pretty good money. There is no real straight answer here, but intelligent design goes a long way.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
September 22nd, 2012 1:07am
Is there a list anywhere?
I have many questions. For example, what roles go together on the same machine for Remote Desktop Services? Can I (/Should I) put a Session Host, Connection Broker, Web Access, and Gateway server all on the same server? Is there a best practices recommendation?
Or could I/should I put an IIS and SharePoint server on the same server? Should I add a Lync Server as well? Or is it better to put SharePoint on its own? What about SQL server? Exchange seems pretty straightforward with its 3 server roles, but how does
one know whether all these sever types play well together?
Does Microsoft offer any ideas? If the point of VMs is to maximize the resources of each box so that they don't go to waste, what about maximizing those same resources within a server? Clearly, each server costs a server license. How does one know which
types play nicely together?
I'm wondering if this is just a dumb question from a relative newbie to Microsoft's cutting edge technology offerings, but I'd really like to know if there are, again, general best practices to follow...
Thanks!
Noel Stanford Oveson
jeremyNLSO
MCTS, MCITP, CCENT, CNE, MCSE, CLSE
Berlin, Germany
Much of this simply comes with trial and error unfortunately. MS can give you supported configurations, case studies can give you examples of what works well, but ultimately your designs are your own and may have both positive and negative outcomes.
However, answering each question mark you have with my own opinions:
1. When running a large Remote Desktop Services farm, I prefer the following setup: 2 Remote Desktop Gateway servers in a farm configuration, 2 Connection Broker and Web Access servers, and X Session Host servers. In other words, I dedicate
the session host servers since they have the most load, and add them to a farm in a fan-out design. I implement 2 servers with web access and connection broker for redundancy and think these roles are good candidates to host together. I dedicate
two gateway servers in a farm configuration for redundancy, and prefer these to be standalone so I can administer them separately without disrupting other services. In smaller environments, I will host gateway with connection broker and web access but
still prefer dedicated session host servers.
2. SharePoint relies on IIS of course, there are no compatibility issues with hosting other IIS sites on a SharePoint server. Ultimately the decision rests on load and administrative burden/downtime in my opinion. I recommend multiple SharePoint
servers in a farm for large deployments, but again it depends.
3. I personally prefer Lync on a dedicated server due to its real-time requirements.
4. I almost always prefer SQL on a dedicated server, primarily for availability. You don't want to take down your database server when you are patching SharePoint, for example.
5. Exchange roles are fairly well documented and I recommend reading the relevant documentation on co-hosting server roles. In general, I prefer two models for exchange: 1. Scale-out deployment with Hub Transport, Client Access, and Mailbox in
a DAG configuration with multiple servers, or 2. Dedicated servers for Mailbox, Hub Transport and Client Access co-hosted. But as above, this is strongly dependent on your environment and goals.
I guess this is why IT Architects make pretty good money. There is no real straight answer here, but intelligent design goes a long way.
September 22nd, 2012 1:17am
I have seen your question but there are no exact query about it .If you want to something more please click here.
dainik bhasker
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
September 22nd, 2012 1:24am
Yeah, I think you're right, Santosh. I'm probably going to post some of my more specific questions in the various forums as they come up. Thanks for this, though. It gives me a good start.
Noel Stanford Oveson
jeremyNLSO
MCTS, MCITP, CCENT, CNE, MCSE, CLSE
Berlin, Germany
September 22nd, 2012 11:51pm
Great info, Neil. That's pretty close to what I was looking for. And you're right, that's why those architects make the big bucks no doubt.
Thanks again...
Noel Stanford Oveson
jeremyNLSO
MCTS, MCITP, CCENT, CNE, MCSE, CLSE
Berlin, Germany
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
September 22nd, 2012 11:53pm
IMO the points you raise here constitute a good argument for virtualization. Have your cake and eat it too.
September 23rd, 2012 6:07pm