Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion
-
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
We had a DC that P2V when I started working here. It had all major file shares, printers, etc off it. The first thing I did was build a new DC and transfer the roles. The next thing I did was build a new print server and take away printer services from it. The next thing I did was migrated the file shares to a new file server.
Even though I mirrored everything to the new file server, people will still accessing the old server and I didnt really have the suppport of the rest of the IT department. Until one day when the old server died and all we had to do was a DNS redirect. I was a hero
So your data was on both servers? or the printers were?
Data
How where you syncing the data?
DFS
and that didn't require a change to the end users? configurations? i.e. drive mappings?
not if they were not using it as he said they were not until the server died.
-
@JaredBusch said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
We had a DC that P2V when I started working here. It had all major file shares, printers, etc off it. The first thing I did was build a new DC and transfer the roles. The next thing I did was build a new print server and take away printer services from it. The next thing I did was migrated the file shares to a new file server.
Even though I mirrored everything to the new file server, people will still accessing the old server and I didnt really have the suppport of the rest of the IT department. Until one day when the old server died and all we had to do was a DNS redirect. I was a hero
So your data was on both servers? or the printers were?
Data
How where you syncing the data?
DFS
and that didn't require a change to the end users? configurations? i.e. drive mappings?
not if they were not using it as he said they were not until the server died.
I haven't used DFS before - so I don't know how the setup works.
-
@JaredBusch said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
IRJ's point was that P2Ving a DC is kinda a waste of time.
But, if you have a bunch of shares/data on it, it might just be easier to P2V versus building a new one, changing all drive mappings, etc.
It's a good chance to get rid of files shares and other things that aren't supposed to be on a DC.
Well, I don't know about you, I don't have tons of Windows licenses hanging around so I can stand up a file/print only server.
You should have a license for every function. We are talking about critical business functions here. AD, printing, and file sharing.
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with that for most SMBs.
Right, for most SMB that is a waste of money. This is why SBS was so hugely popular.
I disagree. If a server is just a DC, you are less likely to run into any issues. It is also a waste of resources since you can run a DC on 512mb of Ram on Windows 2012 core.
You will use less resources, and be more effecient if you have 3 servers separated instead of 3 functions rolled up into one server. Troubleshooting also becomes much easier if you only have one function.
I can agree to disagree and I see your reasoning. However, I cannot personally recommend this to anyone.
-
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@JaredBusch said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
We had a DC that P2V when I started working here. It had all major file shares, printers, etc off it. The first thing I did was build a new DC and transfer the roles. The next thing I did was build a new print server and take away printer services from it. The next thing I did was migrated the file shares to a new file server.
Even though I mirrored everything to the new file server, people will still accessing the old server and I didnt really have the suppport of the rest of the IT department. Until one day when the old server died and all we had to do was a DNS redirect. I was a hero
So your data was on both servers? or the printers were?
Data
How where you syncing the data?
DFS
and that didn't require a change to the end users? configurations? i.e. drive mappings?
not if they were not using it as he said they were not until the server died.
I haven't used DFS before - so I don't know how the setup works.
DFS is pretty cool. The user drives were mirrored on both servers. If I made a change to my user drive on Server A, then it was replicated to Server B within 3 seconds or so.
Before you turn on DFS you need to do a robocopy so DFS is panicking to catch up and only has to send small changes.
-
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@JaredBusch said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
IRJ's point was that P2Ving a DC is kinda a waste of time.
But, if you have a bunch of shares/data on it, it might just be easier to P2V versus building a new one, changing all drive mappings, etc.
It's a good chance to get rid of files shares and other things that aren't supposed to be on a DC.
Well, I don't know about you, I don't have tons of Windows licenses hanging around so I can stand up a file/print only server.
You should have a license for every function. We are talking about critical business functions here. AD, printing, and file sharing.
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with that for most SMBs.
Right, for most SMB that is a waste of money. This is why SBS was so hugely popular.
I disagree. If a server is just a DC, you are less likely to run into any issues. It is also a waste of resources since you can run a DC on 512mb of Ram on Windows 2012 core.
You will use less resources, and be more effecient if you have 3 servers separated instead of 3 functions rolled up into one server. Troubleshooting also becomes much easier if you only have one function.
I can agree to disagree and I see your reasoning. However, I cannot personally recommend this to anyone.
I will certainly not disagree with you from a technical point of view. Also, now that SBS no longer exists, I too would not recommend setting everything up on one.
-
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@JaredBusch said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
IRJ's point was that P2Ving a DC is kinda a waste of time.
But, if you have a bunch of shares/data on it, it might just be easier to P2V versus building a new one, changing all drive mappings, etc.
It's a good chance to get rid of files shares and other things that aren't supposed to be on a DC.
Well, I don't know about you, I don't have tons of Windows licenses hanging around so I can stand up a file/print only server.
You should have a license for every function. We are talking about critical business functions here. AD, printing, and file sharing.
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with that for most SMBs.
Right, for most SMB that is a waste of money. This is why SBS was so hugely popular.
I disagree. If a server is just a DC, you are less likely to run into any issues. It is also a waste of resources since you can run a DC on 512mb of Ram on Windows 2012 core.
You will use less resources, and be more effecient if you have 3 servers separated instead of 3 functions rolled up into one server. Troubleshooting also becomes much easier if you only have one function.
I can agree to disagree and I see your reasoning. However, I cannot personally recommend this to anyone.
I absolutely hear what you are saying, and you have great points - but there is almost no value gain in spending another $800+ for a second Windows Server license so you can have a third VM. In a very small business MS sells Windows Server 2012 R2 Foundation, it does not grant a company more than one VM license. It also precludes the need for user or device CALs. In this case, I think it's completely reasonable to have AD/DNS/DHCP/File/Print all on one box. Personally I'll agree that Exchange should have never been on there, but even Exchange used to be part of that package (but then that package did have user/device CALs).
Now if you go with Server Standard and user/device CALs, then I'd go with two VMs, VM1 = AD/DNS/DHCP, VM2 = anything else. The extra cost to split file and print servers over two VMs will almost never pay for itself in an small company.
-
This is off topic but in response to @Dashrender why would you run Windows Server at all if you can't license it to meet best practices? If you can't afford $800 for a Server Standard license (for the two VM license) then you shouldn't have in house IT staff or on-site servers to begin with.
-
@coliver said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
This is off topic but in response to @Dashrender why would you run Windows Server at all if you can't license it to meet best practices? If you can't afford $800 for a Server Standard license (for the two VM license) then you shouldn't have in house IT staff or on-site servers to begin with.
I some what agree with this. But I think the better question is, if you can't afford Microsoft Licensing, why aren't you (the business) looking to linux.
The only thing not on Linux at this point is specifically "Exchange", and even that is less and less common since you could use Zentyal.
Offered 100% free of charge.
So save all of the licensing cost, create a bunch of tiny, singular purpose Server VM's and be done with.
-
And the reason I bring up linux, is that it is not feasible to believe that business owners (from all scales) haven't at least heard of Linux.
Sure Microsoft and Apple are the name brands, but Linux is very much a name brand. I'd say it's even more of a name brand and work-horse than Microsoft is.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
And the reason I bring up linux, is that it is not feasible to believe that business owners (from all scales) haven't at least heard of Linux.
Sure Microsoft and Apple are the name brands, but Linux is very much a name brand. I'd say it's even more of a name brand and work-horse than Microsoft is.
It is, it's just not sold, ever. Which is where we get into bad practice at small businesses taking advice from sales people. Opening a new business today, I really see no reason why anyone would not use SAMBA services.
-
@travisdh1 Of course, Linux is sold.
It's sold daily, as @scottalanmiller has said "Just because it's offered for free doesn't mean I can't sell it".
Which often means, you're getting a support contract for whatever it is you're looking for. Which support contracts are life-lines for SMB's. I think a critical list of software that any SMB should be written up (if hundreds don't already exist), all based on linux.
SAMBA would have to be at the top of the list.
-
@coliver said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
This is off topic but in response to @Dashrender why would you run Windows Server at all if you can't license it to meet best practices? If you can't afford $800 for a Server Standard license (for the two VM license) then you shouldn't have in house IT staff or on-site servers to begin with.
Not sure where in-house IT staff came from - I don't see an assumption of that. As for the best practices, I guess in this case it's one I don't agree with for SMB if the client wants Windows.
Should you try to move them to Linux, sure, but if they don't want it, move on.
On-site servers - well even worse than demanding Windows, is some people just don't believe in the cloud.
I personally don't have an issue with the cloud (really some high quality DC running Tier 1 Servers), it's access, typically via the internet that I have an issue with. So I can understand the fears of those who don't want to host their stuff remotely.
-
@travisdh1 said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@DustinB3403 said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
And the reason I bring up linux, is that it is not feasible to believe that business owners (from all scales) haven't at least heard of Linux.
Sure Microsoft and Apple are the name brands, but Linux is very much a name brand. I'd say it's even more of a name brand and work-horse than Microsoft is.
It is, it's just not sold, ever. Which is where we get into bad practice at small businesses taking advice from sales people. Opening a new business today, I really see no reason why anyone would not use SAMBA services.
Wait a min - you said opening a new business - why are you using SAMBA? That's really only need to be compatible with Windows - why are you using Windows in your new business? Linux is 100% free
-
@DustinB3403 said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@travisdh1 Of course, Linux is sold.
It's sold daily, as @scottalanmiller has said "Just because it's offered for free doesn't mean I can't sell it".
That's not what Travis means - he means that sales people aren't selling Linux systems to small businesses, hell they barely sell to medium business - and large businesses, well there really should be much if any selling to them, they should be looking for solutions to their problems and seeking things out, not being sold... so yeah Linux isn't really sold - it's found by those using it as a better solution.
-
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@coliver said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
This is off topic but in response to @Dashrender why would you run Windows Server at all if you can't license it to meet best practices? If you can't afford $800 for a Server Standard license (for the two VM license) then you shouldn't have in house IT staff or on-site servers to begin with.
Not sure where in-house IT staff came from - I don't see an assumption of that. As for the best practices, I guess in this case it's one I don't agree with for SMB if the client wants Windows.
How can they afford to have an IT person on-site if they can't afford the basic tools (in this case licensing) they need to do their job.
Best practice is to run nothing on your DC, except DNS and DHCP. Adding other applications and services can undermine the reliability of the DC and can prevent you from doing maintenance on other applications, who wants their sole DC to go down during the day?
-
we are talking about SMBs - ones that arguably shouldn't be using Windows at all. But they are, so loading them up with extra Server installs for that best practice is overkill, IMO
-
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
we are talking about SMBs - ones that arguably shouldn't be using Windows at all. But they are, so loading them up with extra Server installs for that best practice is overkill, IMO
But you always get two VMs at a minimum. So separating out that much is always good.
-
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@DustinB3403 said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@travisdh1 Of course, Linux is sold.
It's sold daily, as @scottalanmiller has said "Just because it's offered for free doesn't mean I can't sell it".
That's not what Travis means - he means that sales people aren't selling Linux systems to small businesses, hell they barely sell to medium business - and large businesses, well there really should be much if any selling to them, they should be looking for solutions to their problems and seeking things out, not being sold... so yeah Linux isn't really sold - it's found by those using it as a better solution.
Ah yeah that makes sense... haha.. still to early.
-
@Dashrender said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
we are talking about SMBs - ones that arguably shouldn't be using Windows at all. But they are, so loading them up with extra Server installs for that best practice is overkill, IMO
Why would it be overkill? I get that it "makes it more complex" because there are all of these individual systems. But each of those systems specifically run 1 job.
That makes life simple. Oh X isn't working, ok reboot / investigate just that one system.
With Windows this becomes far more complex, because people always try to consolidate the roles to reduce licensing cost as much as possible.
So when X stops working, investigating X often involves interrupting Y and Z.
-
@IRJ said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
@prcssupport said in Upcoming Job couple thoughts on DC demotion:
Everything at the beginning was virtual and server 2003, the owner demanded an all physical design. He was 100% against all cloud.
Is he paying you to do exactly what he says or is he paying you for your IT knowledge?
He had a plan that he hired me to implement... upgrade the servers to 2008r2 and done.
That said I was hungry for work so I took it.
In the end I was able to get them to a better place over all than they were at before my arrival.
Did I think they were better designed before YES. But the (difficult design "customers words" and lack of previous help from the technician changed it all.
He had about 6 servers spun up(running on no better than server 2003) in that network between the two sets of hardware. They only had the creds for 2, or 3 of them, several were nonfunctional. But the systems were necessary for business function. They ended up "figuring something else out since they didn't know how to fix anything"
But all of the systems were still running and using resources despite the fact they had all mostly failed.
