> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
> 8Gb RAM
> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>A number of our servers are coming up for renewal on their warranty, and
>currently we are looking into whether or not we are better off replacing
>them with new servers.
>
> After some initial success with a virtual server I was using on the event
> of Business Recovery I am thinking of replacing the 6+ servers with have
> with just two more powerful servers and running the rest as virtualized
> machines.
>
> Something along the lines of;
>
> Main Machine (Virtual Server 2005)
> Server 2003 - DNS
> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>
> 2nd Server (Virtual Server 2005)
> Server 2003 - Secondary DNS
> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database (Replication/Running Reports)
>
> And then have the data stored on a NAS (Word/Excel/PDF's/Audio Files).
> Which we could also replicate to a second NAS at a remote office for
> Business Recovery.
>
> Then we have a 3rd server to at our recovery site which could take over if
> our main office went down;
>
> Recovery Server
> Server 2003 - DNS
> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>
> Server Spec's;
> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
> 8Gb RAM
> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>
> Do you think something along these lines would be workable? Do I need to
> perhaps looking at upping the server specs a little more?
>
> We are a medium sized company with around 80+ users, probably half of
> those would be local and the other half remote. Highest load on Terminal
> Server I've seen is around 10-15, which is not likely to change any time
> soon.
>
> Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated as I'm still very much in
> the planning stages at the moment.
>
> Thanks in advance, Andrew.

> That was the spec I would use for all three, but your right if I plan on
> using just one for disaster recovery then it's going to need a larger
> amount of RAM I'd not thought much about that side, just an idea I'm
> toying with at the moment.
>
> "Danny Sanders" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>> Server Spec's;
>>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>>> 8Gb RAM
>>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>
>> If I'm following you right and this is the disaster recovery server that
>> will replace 2 servers holding virtual hosts, I would consider at least
>> 16 GB RAM if not more.
>>
>>
>> hth
>> DDS
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Staley" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
>> message news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>A number of our servers are coming up for renewal on their warranty, and
>>>currently we are looking into whether or not we are better off replacing
>>>them with new servers.
>>>
>>> After some initial success with a virtual server I was using on the
>>> event of Business Recovery I am thinking of replacing the 6+ servers
>>> with have with just two more powerful servers and running the rest as
>>> virtualized machines.
>>>
>>> Something along the lines of;
>>>
>>> Main Machine (Virtual Server 2005)
>>> Server 2003 - DNS
>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>>
>>> 2nd Server (Virtual Server 2005)
>>> Server 2003 - Secondary DNS
>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database (Replication/Running Reports)
>>>
>>> And then have the data stored on a NAS (Word/Excel/PDF's/Audio Files).
>>> Which we could also replicate to a second NAS at a remote office for
>>> Business Recovery.
>>>
>>> Then we have a 3rd server to at our recovery site which could take over
>>> if our main office went down;
>>>
>>> Recovery Server
>>> Server 2003 - DNS
>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>>
>>> Server Spec's;
>>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>>> 8Gb RAM
>>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>>
>>> Do you think something along these lines would be workable? Do I need
>>> to perhaps looking at upping the server specs a little more?
>>>
>>> We are a medium sized company with around 80+ users, probably half of
>>> those would be local and the other half remote. Highest load on
>>> Terminal Server I've seen is around 10-15, which is not likely to change
>>> any time soon.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated as I'm still very much in
>>> the planning stages at the moment.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance, Andrew.
>>
>>
>

>> Server Spec's;
>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>> 8Gb RAM
>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>
> If I'm following you right and this is the disaster recovery server that
> will replace 2 servers holding virtual hosts, I would consider at least 16
> GB RAM if not more.
>
>
> hth
> DDS
>
>
> "Andrew Staley" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
> message news:(email address - cut out)...
>>A number of our servers are coming up for renewal on their warranty, and
>>currently we are looking into whether or not we are better off replacing
>>them with new servers.
>>
>> After some initial success with a virtual server I was using on the event
>> of Business Recovery I am thinking of replacing the 6+ servers with have
>> with just two more powerful servers and running the rest as virtualized
>> machines.
>>
>> Something along the lines of;
>>
>> Main Machine (Virtual Server 2005)
>> Server 2003 - DNS
>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>
>> 2nd Server (Virtual Server 2005)
>> Server 2003 - Secondary DNS
>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database (Replication/Running Reports)
>>
>> And then have the data stored on a NAS (Word/Excel/PDF's/Audio Files).
>> Which we could also replicate to a second NAS at a remote office for
>> Business Recovery.
>>
>> Then we have a 3rd server to at our recovery site which could take over
>> if our main office went down;
>>
>> Recovery Server
>> Server 2003 - DNS
>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>
>> Server Spec's;
>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>> 8Gb RAM
>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>
>> Do you think something along these lines would be workable? Do I need to
>> perhaps looking at upping the server specs a little more?
>>
>> We are a medium sized company with around 80+ users, probably half of
>> those would be local and the other half remote. Highest load on Terminal
>> Server I've seen is around 10-15, which is not likely to change any time
>> soon.
>>
>> Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated as I'm still very much in
>> the planning stages at the moment.
>>
>> Thanks in advance, Andrew.
>
>

> Out of interest how many VM's are you running per host and what sort of
> performance are you getting from them?
>
> Are there any issues we perhaps should be aware of?
>
> "Danny Sanders" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> For what it's worth we are going through server consolidation. Our
>> virtual hosts are using 32 GB RAM each.
>>
>> I would up the RAM in each of your virtual hosts to 16 GB if not 32 at
>> least on the host with the Exchange and SQL servers.
>>
>> hth
>> DDS
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Staley" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
>> message news:(email address - cut out)...
>>> That was the spec I would use for all three, but your right if I plan on
>>> using just one for disaster recovery then it's going to need a larger
>>> amount of RAM I'd not thought much about that side, just an idea I'm
>>> toying with at the moment.
>>>
>>> "Danny Sanders" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>> Server Spec's;
>>>>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>>>>> 8Gb RAM
>>>>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>>>
>>>> If I'm following you right and this is the disaster recovery server
>>>> that will replace 2 servers holding virtual hosts, I would consider at
>>>> least 16 GB RAM if not more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hth
>>>> DDS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Andrew Staley" <(email address - cut out)> wrote
>>>> in message news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>>A number of our servers are coming up for renewal on their warranty,
>>>>>and currently we are looking into whether or not we are better off
>>>>>replacing them with new servers.
>>>>>
>>>>> After some initial success with a virtual server I was using on the
>>>>> event of Business Recovery I am thinking of replacing the 6+ servers
>>>>> with have with just two more powerful servers and running the rest as
>>>>> virtualized machines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something along the lines of;
>>>>>
>>>>> Main Machine (Virtual Server 2005)
>>>>> Server 2003 - DNS
>>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>>>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>>>>
>>>>> 2nd Server (Virtual Server 2005)
>>>>> Server 2003 - Secondary DNS
>>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>>>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database (Replication/Running Reports)
>>>>>
>>>>> And then have the data stored on a NAS (Word/Excel/PDF's/Audio Files).
>>>>> Which we could also replicate to a second NAS at a remote office for
>>>>> Business Recovery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we have a 3rd server to at our recovery site which could take
>>>>> over if our main office went down;
>>>>>
>>>>> Recovery Server
>>>>> Server 2003 - DNS
>>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>>>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>>>>
>>>>> Server Spec's;
>>>>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>>>>> 8Gb RAM
>>>>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think something along these lines would be workable? Do I need
>>>>> to perhaps looking at upping the server specs a little more?
>>>>>
>>>>> We are a medium sized company with around 80+ users, probably half of
>>>>> those would be local and the other half remote. Highest load on
>>>>> Terminal Server I've seen is around 10-15, which is not likely to
>>>>> change any time soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated as I'm still very much
>>>>> in the planning stages at the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance, Andrew.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

> For what it's worth we are going through server consolidation. Our virtual
> hosts are using 32 GB RAM each.
>
> I would up the RAM in each of your virtual hosts to 16 GB if not 32 at
> least on the host with the Exchange and SQL servers.
>
> hth
> DDS
>
>
> "Andrew Staley" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
> message news:(email address - cut out)...
>> That was the spec I would use for all three, but your right if I plan on
>> using just one for disaster recovery then it's going to need a larger
>> amount of RAM I'd not thought much about that side, just an idea I'm
>> toying with at the moment.
>>
>> "Danny Sanders" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>> Server Spec's;
>>>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>>>> 8Gb RAM
>>>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>>
>>> If I'm following you right and this is the disaster recovery server that
>>> will replace 2 servers holding virtual hosts, I would consider at least
>>> 16 GB RAM if not more.
>>>
>>>
>>> hth
>>> DDS
>>>
>>>
>>> "Andrew Staley" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
>>> message news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>A number of our servers are coming up for renewal on their warranty, and
>>>>currently we are looking into whether or not we are better off replacing
>>>>them with new servers.
>>>>
>>>> After some initial success with a virtual server I was using on the
>>>> event of Business Recovery I am thinking of replacing the 6+ servers
>>>> with have with just two more powerful servers and running the rest as
>>>> virtualized machines.
>>>>
>>>> Something along the lines of;
>>>>
>>>> Main Machine (Virtual Server 2005)
>>>> Server 2003 - DNS
>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>>>
>>>> 2nd Server (Virtual Server 2005)
>>>> Server 2003 - Secondary DNS
>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database (Replication/Running Reports)
>>>>
>>>> And then have the data stored on a NAS (Word/Excel/PDF's/Audio Files).
>>>> Which we could also replicate to a second NAS at a remote office for
>>>> Business Recovery.
>>>>
>>>> Then we have a 3rd server to at our recovery site which could take over
>>>> if our main office went down;
>>>>
>>>> Recovery Server
>>>> Server 2003 - DNS
>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>>>
>>>> Server Spec's;
>>>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>>>> 8Gb RAM
>>>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>>>
>>>> Do you think something along these lines would be workable? Do I need
>>>> to perhaps looking at upping the server specs a little more?
>>>>
>>>> We are a medium sized company with around 80+ users, probably half of
>>>> those would be local and the other half remote. Highest load on
>>>> Terminal Server I've seen is around 10-15, which is not likely to
>>>> change any time soon.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated as I'm still very much
>>>> in the planning stages at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance, Andrew.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>