MS Small Business Server

Anyone out there running SBS?

Since there seem to be quite a few people running home networks here at Sharkys, I thought I would run a thread so that I could benefit from others expertise of the community and perhaps provide some information for the use of others. All comments are welcome, but this is not a discussion on the pros and cons of competing technologies. The design and set up will reflect many aspects of the set up I have been pushing for SBS 2000, and as such will probably be overkill for home use. Feel free to address these particulars as they occur.

After doing some testing on SBS 2003, I have decided to switch from my old Server 2000 Domain and build a new one using SBS 2003. In large part, the desire is to have a network that runs on one server. And to develop a proven model to use as a base line for future deployments. But also, the old Domain is in need of a massive update do to four years of being used for testing. It has grown to 8 servers and the plan is to end up with a network that has one SBS Server + a Web Server sitting in the DMZ. With this in mind, I decided that my time would be better spent on a new setup that would be in line with the direction of the market segment that seems to be open to me. Also, I spend 40 hours a week working with a 600 user 2K AD domain, so I really have little desire to do more or less the same thing with Server 2003. All hardware will be stuff I have on hand except for the SBS Server, which will be a new build (what can I say, its been almost two years since I built a system). Also, I will be trying out some new (to me) ways of using wireless access. And migrating from Access over to SQL for db’s (this may happen at a much later date due to lack of SQL experience).

The Network

The Network will be built from existing hardware, and some of this will be a little long in the tooth. But it is on hand and perfectly serviceable. The initial plan is this:


Network Plan

I have one box with BSB 2k3 at home. I like most of the extra stuff wrapped around the OS such as daily performance, exception and usage reports and the extra wizards. The thing I don't like about the OS is that it is limited to 2GB memory that is quickly consumed by SQL Server database processing. There is one for Exchange and one for SBS reporting plus any for your own applications.

The other included servers make SBS very attrctive for small business (up to 75 users) and one of the best bargains. If you are in the "configure & support" business, a knowledge of SBS is essential. It is also a good source of new revenue.

The SBS Server

The server will be a 1U system with a P4SC8 mother board from Supermicro. To this will be added an Intel Pro/1000 network adapter in addition to the two onboard 100mbps NICs.

The CPU will be a 3.2E Prescott P4.

Ram is 1gig of Crucial cas3 DDR400 ECC. 4 256meg sticks.

Storage is a pair of Fujitsu 73gig 10k SCSI drives.

UPS will be an APC 1100 that is already on hand.

I would have loved to do a SCSI raid, but it would have busted the $2000 budget that I have set. This set up will leave about $400 for any thing that pops up unexpectedly.

All software is on hand, MS software provided by their Partners Program along with a few free add on programs such as SUS server. AV will be Symantec SBS edition 8.1. and was also on hand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ua549
I have one box with BSB 2k3 at home. I like most of the extra stuff wrapped around the OS such as daily performance, exception and usage reports and the extra wizards. The thing I don't like about the OS is that it is limited to 2GB memory that is quickly consumed by SQL Server database processing. There is one for Exchange and one for SBS reporting plus any for your own applications.

The other included servers make SBS very attrctive for small business (up to 75 users) and one of the best bargains. If you are in the "configure & support" business, a knowledge of SBS is essential. It is also a good source of new revenue.

---

The SBS test setup I ran was a piece of cake and some of the new wizards really make it user friendly. Some of the reading I have done suggests having a separate SQL server, but that is beyond the scope of my experience. Perhaps I’ll explore that before the end of the project. The SQL set up that is running at work is very memory hungry. One of the “tricks” used on it was multiple page files. But my contact with it is limited to connectivity and load balancing work arounds. If all goes well, I hope to gain some SQL knowledge from this.

I would hope to see you in this thread often. :D I have plans to pick your brain now and again. :p

You'll need another GB of memory if you install Exchange.

When you set up the drives, make them both basic and mount one on an empty folder on the other. Data can be accessed as if on a single drive, yet each drive can stand alone.

Another great feature is that folders and files can be rolled backward, forward and/or restored using the previous versions tab on the object's properties tab. It is user friendly and leaves WinXP restore points in the stone age.

I support many clients running SBS 2003. As ua already said, it's a great money maker. SBS makes it much easier for small businesses to be able to afford and use many of the core Microsoft services. I think it's great in that respect.

However, on my home network, I don't use SBS. I run a single server with Windows 2003 Standard. I also run Exchange 2003 and SQL 2000 on this same server. The server is not that beefy, it's only a P4 3.2Ghz with an IDE RAID 5 system. It only has 1GB of RAM. I've got ISA Server 2004 running on another dedicated server.

Performance is very good on this system. I love it.:)

I just don't like the limitations on SBS. I don't like the fact that I can't establish trust relationships with other domains, effectively rendering ADMT and the like unusable if you want to do a rebuild. I also don't like the inability to add another DC to the network for testing purposes etc..

I'm guessing if you are running this stuff at home, like me, you probably either have an Action Pack, or an MSDN subscription. Therefore you've got access to both products. Out of curiousity, why do you want to limit yourself by running SBS instead of full blown server?:)

There are several reasons, the biggest being that SBS 2000 is almost at EoL, and I need some experience with SBS 2003. The second reason is to simplify my home network. I’m not killing off the 2K domain; I just won’t use it day to day any more. And lastly, I need to get off my butt and develop some new customers. IMHO SBS 2003 is the way to go about this. My typical client is a law firm with 3 to 5 lawyers and 5 or so support staff. Usually they will have 10 or so systems and perhaps be in a workgroup. There is usually a network of some type providing internet and my first contact will be when some form of mal-ware takes it down. And while my guys are pretty good at cleaning this stuff up, the never ending nature of the intrusions is poorly understood by the clients. Not to mention that every Tom, ****, and Harry is trying to get these cleaning jobs at survival wages per visit. At the end of this, I hope to develop a default deployment that will simplify roll out and pricing. One point already mentioned is RAM. UA’s recommendation far exceeds that of MS. And would make for about a $400 dollar swing in the server cost. This is the kind of stuff that I need to stay ahead of. If I had to add RAM after the fact, it would most likely come right out of my pocket. The way things stand now, I make payroll, pay insurance and what is left for me is less than minimum wage. And for this I get to work nights and weekends fixing what is usually ID10T errors made by users who have far to much ability to do damage. The day job keeps me plenty busy, but it has become almost totally equipment deployment and WAN support of late. And this is not what I really enjoy. Default user profiles and images for new systems can get down right boring. And prying open other agencies firewalls so that our VPN’s will work is almost as bad as having wisdom teeth pulled. So in a nut shell, I’m going to set this thing up, get a baseline from the use here at home, and then stress it with some artificial load. And while I could serve my home/business use with a single DC, I could not in good faith sell this to clients. I should mention that I run into the single DC setup quite often. Usually right after the IDE hard drive dies. And almost as often, I find that the setup was built by adapting a Ghost image from someone else’s server. No OS license and no CALs! It’s kind of funny in a way. The office apps will usually be from a corporate build and the original vender will be some long gone guy with an unpronounceable name. The client is always sure that it was done legitimately, but never has any documentation or licenses. But got it all done for some ridiculously low ball price.

As to your other concerns, I seldom do any work with clients that have existing multi server domains these days. I just don’t have the time to put into them. The only big domain I work with is the day job. And having just finished a migration from an NT domain into and existing AD domain, I hope to never do one again. Our business model and WAN structure does not match our parent agency, and we were forced to use OUs instead of sites. On top of that, the WAN backbone is shared with two other agencies and crosses a LATA boundary. I’m still trying to talk them into creating at least one additional site to address the issues that still remain from this. And let’s not even discuss having another agency holding all of the domain admin tickets and managing the firewall and concentrator. A filter that I could enter in three minutes often takes three days to get done. And a new VPN account can take several weeks!

Hmm……Well that kind of turned into a rant. So I’ll close by saying that I need to put some enjoyment back into this job, and I think some SBS client would go a long way in that direction. With this in mind, SBS 2003 looks at first glance as if it has the ability to do this better than SBS 2000. Also, my early SBS 2000 rollouts are almost three years old now. So there might be some opportunity for upgrades as the hardware gets replaced.

Another tip. SBS will take a minimum of 8 hours to do a complete installation and configuration of SBS 2k3 in a 10 user environment. That is starting from a pre-install image. If the installation goes a bit faster, then you have an offset for those pesky problems that tend to pop up during configuration.

I always quoted a fixed price for the initial setup and configuration to get an initial client. Once there you can find out about the other revenue opportunities. As an aside, I did this for a 5 user NT installation and got a no-bid follow-on contract for configuring a 20k thin client to mainframe network at $250 per hour.

Hey ua, why do you say you need another 1GB of RAM to run Exchange on SBS 2K3?

I have many clients running SBS 2K3, using it as a DC, Exchange, for file and print services, Databases, etc. Almost all of these clients are running with only 1GB of RAM.

I haven't had any issues whatsoever due to a lack of RAM. Just wondering why you felt you needed so much RAM.:)



Also, I find that a 10 user install of SBS will take more like 16 hours or more. After setting up the server, migrating user data, migrating all workstations and profiles, setting up AV, creating user accounts, modifying GPO's, and setting up backups, you've got a lot of time into it.

Exchange will eat a lot of memory if features such as public schedules are used and volume is high. Being SQL based it will perform much better with more memory rather than less. The sites I've set up also use IIS extensively for an intranet as well as an extranet.

I did not count migrating existing applications and/or data to a new server as part of the installation. Those are so variable that I always made separate project/line items for those services. I never was much of an applications person. I was strictly an infrastructure consultant - 80% networking, 20% operating systems.

In 8 hours I am able to load SBS on a dual Xeon with a formatted disk subsystem, configure it with 10 users and setup 10 client machines with a formatted disk. No applications other than those included in SBS such as IIS and Exchange. If drives must be formatted, that task is done before the installation because of the extensive amount of time it can take for large RAID 5 arrays.

(I have lots of time and my services are free to certain organizations since I retired at the end of 1998.)

If you are consuming 16 hours for an installation, you are doing more things than I do - like migrating existing data.

How do you guys deal with the client’s business side of the roll out? Up to this point I have used the services of an associate who specializes in Peachtree and Word Perfect. Word Perfect being the norm for law offices in this area. He sets up the apps and builds custom document templates and such. Then farms the desktop installs back to me as a sub. Then he handles the user support, which usually includes some user training. If it is an MS Office roll out, then I do that in house.

I outsourced application work to a specialist. I couldn't afford the time to mess with it. I was booked solid with 1, 4 and 5 day projects for 10 years. At that time billing rates were typically per diem rather than hourly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thermo
Anyone out there running SBS?

---

We try to avoid it more and more now. Just because of running into problems as the business grows. Like needing Exchange Enterprise. AFAIK the limit is like 25 CAL too. Plus every 5CAL license pack is WAY more expensive than the regular one.

Eric

The user limit is 75 CAL with SBS 2k3.

True the CALS for SBS list for $92 versus $40 for Win2k3 Server, but they include CALS for the servers that come with SBS such as Exchange and SQL Server. An Exchange CAL by itself is $67. A SQL Server CAL is $146. Even without SQL Server an SBS CAL at $92 costs less than a Win2k3 + Exchange CAL at $107. All prices are list.

SBS pricing is one of the best bargains Microsoft offers.