|
|
|
date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:20:58 -0400,
group: microsoft.public.exchange.design
back
Is Exchange Server overkill in this scenario?
I have a small network composed of a single Windows 2003 Server and about a
dozen Windows XP Pro SP2 PCs. The server is not configured for AD. Users
connect to the server from their desktop via Terminal Services to run a
business application. Other than that, users run Office 2003 and a few other
minor applications from their desktop. Users access their mailbox via their
ISP via POP3. This configuration has been working well for about 18 months.
Users now want the ability to access one another's calendar, have access to
a common calendar, share contacts, etc. Exchange Server can certainly do
this, but it seems like overkill. Upon researching this, however, I was
unable to find a solution. So it looks like I might need to add Exchange
Server 2003 to this environment.
Questions
1. Is Exchange Server overkill? Are there any alternatives for simple
scheduling and shared calendaring? I believe there's a protocol or standard
for this (iCal?), but it seems inadequate.
2. Can Exchange be added to the server as described? It would have been
more-than-powerful enough to run SBS, so adding just Exchange seems
plausible.
3. The server as configured is not a domain controller; i.e., no AD. Is AD a
requirement for Exchange?
4. I suppose I would need to change the email retrieval configuration from
individual POP3 access to having the server do the retrieval for everyone.
In Exchange 5.5, the Internet Mail Server and ETRN would handle this. Is it
similar with Exchange Server 2003?
5. Anything else I should be aware of?
Thanks!
date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:20:58 -0400
author: Chris am
Re: Is Exchange Server overkill in this scenario?
"Chris" <cwaters@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in
news:OSLLBW#pFHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:
Overkill is in the eye of the beholder. You can acheive this. Yes Ad is
required. Look into the pricing for SBS. It may end up being a better
path than just getting Exchange. SBS will also give you ISA, to allow you
to safely publish OWA if desired.
> I have a small network composed of a single Windows 2003 Server and
> about a dozen Windows XP Pro SP2 PCs. The server is not configured for
> AD. Users connect to the server from their desktop via Terminal
> Services to run a business application. Other than that, users run
> Office 2003 and a few other minor applications from their desktop.
> Users access their mailbox via their ISP via POP3. This configuration
> has been working well for about 18 months.
>
> Users now want the ability to access one another's calendar, have
> access to a common calendar, share contacts, etc. Exchange Server can
> certainly do this, but it seems like overkill. Upon researching this,
> however, I was unable to find a solution. So it looks like I might
> need to add Exchange Server 2003 to this environment.
>
> Questions
> 1. Is Exchange Server overkill? Are there any alternatives for simple
> scheduling and shared calendaring? I believe there's a protocol or
> standard for this (iCal?), but it seems inadequate.
>
> 2. Can Exchange be added to the server as described? It would have
> been more-than-powerful enough to run SBS, so adding just Exchange
> seems plausible.
>
> 3. The server as configured is not a domain controller; i.e., no AD.
> Is AD a requirement for Exchange?
>
> 4. I suppose I would need to change the email retrieval configuration
> from individual POP3 access to having the server do the retrieval for
> everyone. In Exchange 5.5, the Internet Mail Server and ETRN would
> handle this. Is it similar with Exchange Server 2003?
>
> 5. Anything else I should be aware of?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:02:25 -0700
author: Asher_N
Re: Is Exchange Server overkill in this scenario?
Exchange does those things very well and it's hard to beat.
I haven't tried this lately, but this might be worth looking at
http://www.opengroupware.org/en/applications/index.html
This might as well http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/
Note how they all try to emulate what Exchange already does :)
AD is required, but I think you'll see some benefits that come with it such
as management of the workstations. Some added complexity as well when it
comes to recovery etc.
iCal is a standard, but it's more about how you access the product, not the
product itself. FWIW.
Exchange 2003 SBS has a pop retrieval method, but it might be better to have
mail delivered directly to you via DNS records. Depends on who owns the
domain name, how you want users to get mail remotely etc.
Al
"Chris" <cwaters@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:OSLLBW%23pFHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I have a small network composed of a single Windows 2003 Server and about a
>dozen Windows XP Pro SP2 PCs. The server is not configured for AD. Users
>connect to the server from their desktop via Terminal Services to run a
>business application. Other than that, users run Office 2003 and a few
>other minor applications from their desktop. Users access their mailbox via
>their ISP via POP3. This configuration has been working well for about 18
>months.
>
> Users now want the ability to access one another's calendar, have access
> to a common calendar, share contacts, etc. Exchange Server can certainly
> do this, but it seems like overkill. Upon researching this, however, I was
> unable to find a solution. So it looks like I might need to add Exchange
> Server 2003 to this environment.
>
> Questions
> 1. Is Exchange Server overkill? Are there any alternatives for simple
> scheduling and shared calendaring? I believe there's a protocol or
> standard for this (iCal?), but it seems inadequate.
>
> 2. Can Exchange be added to the server as described? It would have been
> more-than-powerful enough to run SBS, so adding just Exchange seems
> plausible.
>
> 3. The server as configured is not a domain controller; i.e., no AD. Is AD
> a requirement for Exchange?
>
> 4. I suppose I would need to change the email retrieval configuration from
> individual POP3 access to having the server do the retrieval for everyone.
> In Exchange 5.5, the Internet Mail Server and ETRN would handle this. Is
> it similar with Exchange Server 2003?
>
> 5. Anything else I should be aware of?
>
> Thanks!
>
date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:03:57 -0400
author: Al Mulnick
Re: Is Exchange Server overkill in this scenario?
"Chris" <cwaters@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:OSLLBW%23pFHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I have a small network composed of a single Windows 2003 Server and about a
>dozen Windows XP Pro SP2 PCs. The server is not configured for AD. Users
>connect to the server from their desktop via Terminal Services to run a
>business application. Other than that, users run Office 2003 and a few
>other minor applications from their desktop. Users access their mailbox via
>their ISP via POP3. This configuration has been working well for about 18
>months.
>
> Users now want the ability to access one another's calendar, have access
> to a common calendar, share contacts, etc. Exchange Server can certainly
> do this, but it seems like overkill. Upon researching this, however, I was
> unable to find a solution. So it looks like I might need to add Exchange
> Server 2003 to this environment.
>
> Questions
> 1. Is Exchange Server overkill? Are there any alternatives for simple
> scheduling and shared calendaring? I believe there's a protocol or
> standard for this (iCal?), but it seems inadequate.
>
> 2. Can Exchange be added to the server as described? It would have been
> more-than-powerful enough to run SBS, so adding just Exchange seems
> plausible.
>
> 3. The server as configured is not a domain controller; i.e., no AD. Is AD
> a requirement for Exchange?
>
> 4. I suppose I would need to change the email retrieval configuration from
> individual POP3 access to having the server do the retrieval for everyone.
> In Exchange 5.5, the Internet Mail Server and ETRN would handle this. Is
> it similar with Exchange Server 2003?
>
> 5. Anything else I should be aware of?
>
> Thanks!
>
Your network is tailor-made for Small Business Server 2003 with one
exception - it won't run your terminal services server in application server
mode. SBS 2000 would do that, but MS disabled the feature in SBS 2003.
Addressing your concerns:
1. It's designed to do just this, fairly affordably.
2. Powerful maybe, but fault-tolerant enough? A file server crash is a
problem, but not a very expensive one typically. A domain controller crash
is a little challenging to recover from, but not that big of a deal. An
Exchange server crash, on the other hand, gets expensive. All I really care
about is that your transaction logs are on a mirrored drive (just add a
couple of extra drives of any size to the server, mirror them, and dedicate
them to transaction logs. The logs do not require much space and are limited
to 5MB/log. They are tiny but vital should your database fail. Lastly, it is
a requirement that's not subject to discussion that the server is backed up
to tape nightly.
3. You should run dcpromo tomorrow and get your workstations in shape. With
centralized administrative and group policy control you'll find yourself
doing far less work to manage those things. AD is required and there is no
reason not to use it.
4. You won't have to support POP3 from the clients. Outlook 2003 cached mode
is your friend. If you buy SBS, by the way, you get enough Outlook 2003
licenses for everyone at no extra charge.
5. See below for a value comparison analysis of a couple of options.
So let's see... going by MSRP for all pricing as a worst case scenario
(volume license and OEM certainly are cheaper)... adding Exchange 2003 Std
wtih 5 CALs will cost you $1300 for the software, and $67*7 = $469 for the
add-on licenses. So you are looking at an implementation cost of $1769 for
adding Exchange for 12 seats. However... is that server equipped for fault
tolerancy requirement of Exchange? :-)
If you went the SBS route, which would add SharePoint into the mix at no
cost (for the users who love to share their data), you would need 10
additional licenses (sold in packs of 5 at about $460 each), or $920 roughly
and $600 SBS 2003 STD. Your implementation cost would be $1520 and you'd had
2 extra licenses (your member server running terminal services would require
a CAL) to do with as you please, as well as you'd have SharePoint as a
bonus. It also is very easy to manage.
However, as I mentioned, SBS would require its own server and may cost
substantially more for that reason if you wanted to preserve your investment
in terminal server licenses and keep the existing terminal services box as a
member server. In this analysis I used only properly licensed software as
examples.
--
Leonid S. Knyshov, CEO
Crashproof Solutions, LLC - http://www.crashproofsolutions.com/sbs
MCP Exchange 2003/Small Business Server 2003, CCNA, SCSA 8
Microsoft Small Business Specialist community member
date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:00:13 -0700
author: Leonid S. Knyshov
Re: Is Exchange Server overkill in this scenario?
"Chris" <cwaters@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:OLZOTVaqFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Leonid!
>
> So Exchange or SBS could be installed on the existing server; however, a
> few hard drives would need to be added for the Exchange (and SQL Server,
> presumably) transaction logs.
>
> Adding Exchange would require promoting the terminal server to be a DC.
> Users could still run their app via terminal services. Adding SBS would
> require first turning off terminal services application mode and making
> the workstations run the app on their desktop.
>
> Adding a server as a DC running Exchange or SBS wouldn't impact the
> terminal server and wouldn't require making the workstations run the app
> on their desktop. In this scenario and from this price point, SBS seems to
> be the way to go. Do you agree? SQL Server would be nice to have, too,
> since the application on the terminal server could use it.
>
> How will Outlook 2003's cached mode help?
>
>> If you went the SBS route...(your member server running terminal services
>> would require a CAL)
>
> Why would the member server require a CAL? What type of CAL?
Hi Chris,
There is no requirement to make the Terminal Server a DC... as a matter of
fact that's not recommended if there is more than one server available. It's
especially bad in case where the line of business application requires
administrative rights to run. I've seen my share of horror stories with
terminal services and all users as domain admins. I trust the users, but let
one of those users make one typo in IE and that server is compromized with
spyware. And that's expensive as cleaning up a terminal server while keeping
the business operational is a lot more difficult than it is to clean up a
desktop.
It's still definitely better to have an Active Directory on the TS rather
than none at all. Yes you can just add some drives and a tape backup unit if
you do not have one already. Make sure you have a couple of gigs of RAM.
In your case, the reason why I suggested to activate Active Directory is
that you can get all your workstations under control and immediately reduce
support costs that are associated with the lack of a central security
authority. Right now, though you have a server, your network security model
is still pretty much peer-to-peer.
Getting properly licensed MS SQL 2000 will require Small Business Server
2003 Premium, which is a $900 upgrade on top of Standard. Your SBS CALs
would then cover all SQL license requirements. Still, you wouldn't be able
to match that cost with SQL Server 2000 Standard package :-).
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 and SBS 2003 require a CAL for each extra
server. In your case, you'll get 5 CALs as part of the package and will need
to get a couple of extra 5-packs (Microsoft does not offer single-pack SBS
CALs).
Outlook cached mode allows your users to work with their Exchange mailbox
while not connected to the network. When a sync is initiated, the data is
synchronized. That definitely beats the one-way nature of POP3. You can
offer remote access to Exchange through web access, VPN, and RPC/HTTP. Did I
mention cached calendars? :-)
In your case, yes SBS sounds like an ideal solution (at least on the
Microsoft platform).
Try the MS demo labs for the product to get a little more familiar with it.
You should be able to order a trial kit as well, for the cost of shipping
and then upgrade it to a retail license when ready.
--
Leonid S. Knyshov, CEO
Crashproof Solutions, LLC - http://www.crashproofsolutions.com
MCP Exchange 2003/Small Business Server 2003, CCNA, SCSA 8
Microsoft Small Business Specialist
date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:34:19 -0700
author: Leonid S. Knyshov
|
|
