To upgrade or not upgrade, that is the question

My current server is SBS 2003 Premium and my practice managment software 
uses a SQL 2000 DB. I also run Exchange. I do not have the SBS2003 R2 
upgrade.

My practice management software no longer supports SQL 2000. Their minimum 
requirement is SQL 2005. My current server is a 4 year old Dell PE 2800 with 
a 3 GHz Xeon single processor (room for another) and 2GB ram. I'm not sure 
if it is  64bit capable but I think it is. I have 9 workstations which are 
accessing the database pretty much continuously. I wouldn't say that my 
practice managment program seems slow, although there would be some room for 
improvement. I don't know if moving to SBS 2008 and dedicating a server to 
SQL would help speed it up a bit, but I suppose it may, I'm just not sure if 
any of the infrequent slowdowns I see are from SQL being underpowered in my 
current configuaration. I would guess that it isn't since on my personal 
workstation, which is decently beefy Core i7, I rarely see slowdowns.

I am trying to determine which upgrade path makes the most sense. One option 
would be to only get the SBS2003 R2 upgrade, at a cost of about $640. The 
other option would be to upgrade to SBS 2008 Premium. That would require a 
new server (I think) and an OS upgrade, so likely a rather large investment. 
Would it make sense to get the R2 upgrade with software assurance? Would 
that allow me to upgrade to SBS2008 later with minimal software cost? Or 
does the R2 only upgrade sound like a "dead end" upgrade?

-Dave 


0
Dave
4/16/2010 7:03:52 PM
windows.server.sbs 1975 articles. 0 followers. Follow

9 Replies
651 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 12

If it were me, I'd get 2008 with SA.   2003 R2 is also old and you'll be 
upgrading sooner instead of later again anyways.  Why put yourself through 
the hassle of 2 upgrades when you can just strategically plan one and then 
coast for a few more years?

-Cliff


"Dave" <please@reply.in.group.com> wrote in message 
news:m6SdnTFdVvs6KVXWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> My current server is SBS 2003 Premium and my practice managment software 
> uses a SQL 2000 DB. I also run Exchange. I do not have the SBS2003 R2 
> upgrade.
>
> My practice management software no longer supports SQL 2000. Their minimum 
> requirement is SQL 2005. My current server is a 4 year old Dell PE 2800 
> with a 3 GHz Xeon single processor (room for another) and 2GB ram. I'm not 
> sure if it is  64bit capable but I think it is. I have 9 workstations 
> which are accessing the database pretty much continuously. I wouldn't say 
> that my practice managment program seems slow, although there would be 
> some room for improvement. I don't know if moving to SBS 2008 and 
> dedicating a server to SQL would help speed it up a bit, but I suppose it 
> may, I'm just not sure if any of the infrequent slowdowns I see are from 
> SQL being underpowered in my current configuaration. I would guess that it 
> isn't since on my personal workstation, which is decently beefy Core i7, I 
> rarely see slowdowns.
>
> I am trying to determine which upgrade path makes the most sense. One 
> option would be to only get the SBS2003 R2 upgrade, at a cost of about 
> $640. The other option would be to upgrade to SBS 2008 Premium. That would 
> require a new server (I think) and an OS upgrade, so likely a rather large 
> investment. Would it make sense to get the R2 upgrade with software 
> assurance? Would that allow me to upgrade to SBS2008 later with minimal 
> software cost? Or does the R2 only upgrade sound like a "dead end" 
> upgrade?
>
> -Dave
> 
0
Cliff
4/17/2010 12:01:19 AM
R2 with SA would get you 2008, but you'd still have to deal with the upgrade 
to 2008 pretty quick. I'd be inclined to bite the bullet and go all the way 
to 2008 with SA. IF your current machine supports 64-bit, AND it supports 
hardware virtualization AND it can hold 12-16 GB of RAM, then you could do 
it all by creating VMs on the current hardware (after upgrading the RAM and 
adding a CPU.) But I honestly think you'd be better served by going with a 
new server and sizing it as necessary. If you need to stay on the low cost 
side, you could possibly repurpose the existing server as a new SQL only 
server for your SBS Premium second server. That could be 32-bit or 64-bit, 
but I'd really want to bump the RAM up to 4 GB even if you stay with 32-bit. 
But migration is much simpler if you go with all new and find some other use 
for the existing SBS box.

-- 
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel




"Dave" <please@reply.in.group.com> wrote in message 
news:m6SdnTFdVvs6KVXWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> My current server is SBS 2003 Premium and my practice managment software 
> uses a SQL 2000 DB. I also run Exchange. I do not have the SBS2003 R2 
> upgrade.
>
> My practice management software no longer supports SQL 2000. Their minimum 
> requirement is SQL 2005. My current server is a 4 year old Dell PE 2800 
> with a 3 GHz Xeon single processor (room for another) and 2GB ram. I'm not 
> sure if it is  64bit capable but I think it is. I have 9 workstations 
> which are accessing the database pretty much continuously. I wouldn't say 
> that my practice managment program seems slow, although there would be 
> some room for improvement. I don't know if moving to SBS 2008 and 
> dedicating a server to SQL would help speed it up a bit, but I suppose it 
> may, I'm just not sure if any of the infrequent slowdowns I see are from 
> SQL being underpowered in my current configuaration. I would guess that it 
> isn't since on my personal workstation, which is decently beefy Core i7, I 
> rarely see slowdowns.
>
> I am trying to determine which upgrade path makes the most sense. One 
> option would be to only get the SBS2003 R2 upgrade, at a cost of about 
> $640. The other option would be to upgrade to SBS 2008 Premium. That would 
> require a new server (I think) and an OS upgrade, so likely a rather large 
> investment. Would it make sense to get the R2 upgrade with software 
> assurance? Would that allow me to upgrade to SBS2008 later with minimal 
> software cost? Or does the R2 only upgrade sound like a "dead end" 
> upgrade?
>
> -Dave
> 

0
Charlie
4/17/2010 5:43:11 AM
How many users?

It's entirely possible that you could stay with the current system and maybe 
add a bit of RAM (SBS03 needs 4GB today regardless of anything else), maybe 
use the free SQL 2005 Express for your database (check with supplier whether 
Express is supported).

At high user numbers the difference between full vs express becomes 
important.
There are also functional reasons why Express may not cut the grade.
In most cases LOB apps will work fine on Express.
An Express instance can be installed alongside your full version SQL 2000.

"Dave" <please@reply.in.group.com> wrote in message 
news:m6SdnTFdVvs6KVXWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> My current server is SBS 2003 Premium and my practice managment software 
> uses a SQL 2000 DB. I also run Exchange. I do not have the SBS2003 R2 
> upgrade.
>
> My practice management software no longer supports SQL 2000. Their minimum 
> requirement is SQL 2005. My current server is a 4 year old Dell PE 2800 
> with a 3 GHz Xeon single processor (room for another) and 2GB ram. I'm not 
> sure if it is  64bit capable but I think it is. I have 9 workstations 
> which are accessing the database pretty much continuously. I wouldn't say 
> that my practice managment program seems slow, although there would be 
> some room for improvement. I don't know if moving to SBS 2008 and 
> dedicating a server to SQL would help speed it up a bit, but I suppose it 
> may, I'm just not sure if any of the infrequent slowdowns I see are from 
> SQL being underpowered in my current configuaration. I would guess that it 
> isn't since on my personal workstation, which is decently beefy Core i7, I 
> rarely see slowdowns.
>
> I am trying to determine which upgrade path makes the most sense. One 
> option would be to only get the SBS2003 R2 upgrade, at a cost of about 
> $640. The other option would be to upgrade to SBS 2008 Premium. That would 
> require a new server (I think) and an OS upgrade, so likely a rather large 
> investment. Would it make sense to get the R2 upgrade with software 
> assurance? Would that allow me to upgrade to SBS2008 later with minimal 
> software cost? Or does the R2 only upgrade sound like a "dead end" 
> upgrade?
>
> -Dave
> 


0
SuperGumby
4/17/2010 12:22:43 PM
I have 5 users and 9 workstations.

I checked with my practice managment comapany and they do support SQL 2005 
Express, but only up to 5 concurrent computers, so I would need the full 
version.

-Dave


"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@your.nellie> wrote in message 
news:ObMO4ii3KHA.4540@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> How many users?
>
> It's entirely possible that you could stay with the current system and 
> maybe add a bit of RAM (SBS03 needs 4GB today regardless of anything 
> else), maybe use the free SQL 2005 Express for your database (check with 
> supplier whether Express is supported).
>
> At high user numbers the difference between full vs express becomes 
> important.
> There are also functional reasons why Express may not cut the grade.
> In most cases LOB apps will work fine on Express.
> An Express instance can be installed alongside your full version SQL 2000.
>
> "Dave" <please@reply.in.group.com> wrote in message 
> news:m6SdnTFdVvs6KVXWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> My current server is SBS 2003 Premium and my practice managment software 
>> uses a SQL 2000 DB. I also run Exchange. I do not have the SBS2003 R2 
>> upgrade.
>>
>> My practice management software no longer supports SQL 2000. Their 
>> minimum requirement is SQL 2005. My current server is a 4 year old Dell 
>> PE 2800 with a 3 GHz Xeon single processor (room for another) and 2GB 
>> ram. I'm not sure if it is  64bit capable but I think it is. I have 9 
>> workstations which are accessing the database pretty much continuously. I 
>> wouldn't say that my practice managment program seems slow, although 
>> there would be some room for improvement. I don't know if moving to SBS 
>> 2008 and dedicating a server to SQL would help speed it up a bit, but I 
>> suppose it may, I'm just not sure if any of the infrequent slowdowns I 
>> see are from SQL being underpowered in my current configuaration. I would 
>> guess that it isn't since on my personal workstation, which is decently 
>> beefy Core i7, I rarely see slowdowns.
>>
>> I am trying to determine which upgrade path makes the most sense. One 
>> option would be to only get the SBS2003 R2 upgrade, at a cost of about 
>> $640. The other option would be to upgrade to SBS 2008 Premium. That 
>> would require a new server (I think) and an OS upgrade, so likely a 
>> rather large investment. Would it make sense to get the R2 upgrade with 
>> software assurance? Would that allow me to upgrade to SBS2008 later with 
>> minimal software cost? Or does the R2 only upgrade sound like a "dead 
>> end" upgrade?
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>
> 


0
Dave
4/18/2010 4:18:42 PM
Thanks Charlie. I dug around a little and I don't think that I can run 
64-bit VM's on my current server. So I would be looking at a new server.

Is there a recommended virtualization setup for premium? Would you run 
Server 2008 as the host OS, and SBS, Exchange, and SQL as VM's?

-Dave


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <Charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message 
news:%23hOoeDf3KHA.3352@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> R2 with SA would get you 2008, but you'd still have to deal with the 
> upgrade to 2008 pretty quick. I'd be inclined to bite the bullet and go 
> all the way to 2008 with SA. IF your current machine supports 64-bit, AND 
> it supports hardware virtualization AND it can hold 12-16 GB of RAM, then 
> you could do it all by creating VMs on the current hardware (after 
> upgrading the RAM and adding a CPU.) But I honestly think you'd be better 
> served by going with a new server and sizing it as necessary. If you need 
> to stay on the low cost side, you could possibly repurpose the existing 
> server as a new SQL only server for your SBS Premium second server. That 
> could be 32-bit or 64-bit, but I'd really want to bump the RAM up to 4 GB 
> even if you stay with 32-bit. But migration is much simpler if you go with 
> all new and find some other use for the existing SBS box.
>
> -- 
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel
>
>
>
>
> "Dave" <please@reply.in.group.com> wrote in message 
> news:m6SdnTFdVvs6KVXWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> My current server is SBS 2003 Premium and my practice managment software 
>> uses a SQL 2000 DB. I also run Exchange. I do not have the SBS2003 R2 
>> upgrade.
>>
>> My practice management software no longer supports SQL 2000. Their 
>> minimum requirement is SQL 2005. My current server is a 4 year old Dell 
>> PE 2800 with a 3 GHz Xeon single processor (room for another) and 2GB 
>> ram. I'm not sure if it is  64bit capable but I think it is. I have 9 
>> workstations which are accessing the database pretty much continuously. I 
>> wouldn't say that my practice managment program seems slow, although 
>> there would be some room for improvement. I don't know if moving to SBS 
>> 2008 and dedicating a server to SQL would help speed it up a bit, but I 
>> suppose it may, I'm just not sure if any of the infrequent slowdowns I 
>> see are from SQL being underpowered in my current configuaration. I would 
>> guess that it isn't since on my personal workstation, which is decently 
>> beefy Core i7, I rarely see slowdowns.
>>
>> I am trying to determine which upgrade path makes the most sense. One 
>> option would be to only get the SBS2003 R2 upgrade, at a cost of about 
>> $640. The other option would be to upgrade to SBS 2008 Premium. That 
>> would require a new server (I think) and an OS upgrade, so likely a 
>> rather large investment. Would it make sense to get the R2 upgrade with 
>> software assurance? Would that allow me to upgrade to SBS2008 later with 
>> minimal software cost? Or does the R2 only upgrade sound like a "dead 
>> end" upgrade?
>>
>> -Dave
>>
> 


0
Dave
4/18/2010 4:38:32 PM
I've virtualised SBS08 Premium for 5 users (system could easily handle more) 
on a Dell with 16GB RAM.

The Server 2008 OS from the '2nd server' license is used in '1+1 rights' 
manner as Hyper-V parent and for the SQL Server child, SBS (including 
Exchange) also runs as a child.

"Dave" <please@reply.in.group.com> wrote in message 
news:iLednTtx3f4_qFbWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Thanks Charlie. I dug around a little and I don't think that I can run 
> 64-bit VM's on my current server. So I would be looking at a new server.
>
> Is there a recommended virtualization setup for premium? Would you run 
> Server 2008 as the host OS, and SBS, Exchange, and SQL as VM's?
>
> -Dave
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <Charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message 
> news:%23hOoeDf3KHA.3352@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> R2 with SA would get you 2008, but you'd still have to deal with the 
>> upgrade to 2008 pretty quick. I'd be inclined to bite the bullet and go 
>> all the way to 2008 with SA. IF your current machine supports 64-bit, AND 
>> it supports hardware virtualization AND it can hold 12-16 GB of RAM, then 
>> you could do it all by creating VMs on the current hardware (after 
>> upgrading the RAM and adding a CPU.) But I honestly think you'd be better 
>> served by going with a new server and sizing it as necessary. If you need 
>> to stay on the low cost side, you could possibly repurpose the existing 
>> server as a new SQL only server for your SBS Premium second server. That 
>> could be 32-bit or 64-bit, but I'd really want to bump the RAM up to 4 GB 
>> even if you stay with 32-bit. But migration is much simpler if you go 
>> with all new and find some other use for the existing SBS box.
>>
>> -- 
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Dave" <please@reply.in.group.com> wrote in message 
>> news:m6SdnTFdVvs6KVXWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> My current server is SBS 2003 Premium and my practice managment software 
>>> uses a SQL 2000 DB. I also run Exchange. I do not have the SBS2003 R2 
>>> upgrade.
>>>
>>> My practice management software no longer supports SQL 2000. Their 
>>> minimum requirement is SQL 2005. My current server is a 4 year old Dell 
>>> PE 2800 with a 3 GHz Xeon single processor (room for another) and 2GB 
>>> ram. I'm not sure if it is  64bit capable but I think it is. I have 9 
>>> workstations which are accessing the database pretty much continuously. 
>>> I wouldn't say that my practice managment program seems slow, although 
>>> there would be some room for improvement. I don't know if moving to SBS 
>>> 2008 and dedicating a server to SQL would help speed it up a bit, but I 
>>> suppose it may, I'm just not sure if any of the infrequent slowdowns I 
>>> see are from SQL being underpowered in my current configuaration. I 
>>> would guess that it isn't since on my personal workstation, which is 
>>> decently beefy Core i7, I rarely see slowdowns.
>>>
>>> I am trying to determine which upgrade path makes the most sense. One 
>>> option would be to only get the SBS2003 R2 upgrade, at a cost of about 
>>> $640. The other option would be to upgrade to SBS 2008 Premium. That 
>>> would require a new server (I think) and an OS upgrade, so likely a 
>>> rather large investment. Would it make sense to get the R2 upgrade with 
>>> software assurance? Would that allow me to upgrade to SBS2008 later with 
>>> minimal software cost? Or does the R2 only upgrade sound like a "dead 
>>> end" upgrade?
>>>
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>
>
> 


0
SuperGumby
4/18/2010 4:54:37 PM
Your situation sounds much like my own, 5 users 8 workstations, plus 4 
users/workstations which are rarely in the office. I just completed the 
install of SBS2008 premium on a Dell 2900 server in a virtualized mode. 
Server 2008 with Hyper-V as parent, SBS2008 as child, Server 2008 as child 
with SQL 2005 and SQL 2008 to run an accounting application. I initally set 
up the system with 12 GB ram, but recently added more (18 more to total 32 
GB the maximum permitted) not because I needed it but more as a preventative 
measure for unanticipated problems.

The installation went ok, it took a bit longer to understand and install 
than I anticipated, but I don't do this everyday, the last SBS installed was 
SBS2000 back in 2002 or so. Even so, I built the new server and network in 
the evenings and weekends, with one test workstation, and then when I had 
about 90% of it figured out, I switched over in one weekend, BUT, I spent 
about 3 workdays sorting out printer problems (make sure you get 64 bit and 
32 bit drivers for your printers and quiz the printer vendors hard about 
whether they will work together or whether you will have to install 64 bit 
drivers on the server and 32 bit drivers on each workstation, which I had 
to, instead of having the printers managed by the server they are 
essentially local printers on each workstation). I also had a bit of trouble 
with ISA server which I installed on a separate server (an old spare) 
because I was too cheap to buy a perimeter firewall router (I'd probably buy 
the firwall/router if I had to do it over).

Hope it goes well for you. If you have problems, this newsgroup is extremely 
helpful.
"Dave" <please@reply.in.group.com> wrote in message 
news:m5idnZfcda5mrVbWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>I have 5 users and 9 workstations.
>
> I checked with my practice managment comapany and they do support SQL 2005 
> Express, but only up to 5 concurrent computers, so I would need the full 
> version.
>
> -Dave
>
>
> "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@your.nellie> wrote in message 
> news:ObMO4ii3KHA.4540@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> How many users?
>>
>> It's entirely possible that you could stay with the current system and 
>> maybe add a bit of RAM (SBS03 needs 4GB today regardless of anything 
>> else), maybe use the free SQL 2005 Express for your database (check with 
>> supplier whether Express is supported).
>>
>> At high user numbers the difference between full vs express becomes 
>> important.
>> There are also functional reasons why Express may not cut the grade.
>> In most cases LOB apps will work fine on Express.
>> An Express instance can be installed alongside your full version SQL 
>> 2000.
>>
>> "Dave" <please@reply.in.group.com> wrote in message 
>> news:m6SdnTFdVvs6KVXWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> My current server is SBS 2003 Premium and my practice managment software 
>>> uses a SQL 2000 DB. I also run Exchange. I do not have the SBS2003 R2 
>>> upgrade.
>>>
>>> My practice management software no longer supports SQL 2000. Their 
>>> minimum requirement is SQL 2005. My current server is a 4 year old Dell 
>>> PE 2800 with a 3 GHz Xeon single processor (room for another) and 2GB 
>>> ram. I'm not sure if it is  64bit capable but I think it is. I have 9 
>>> workstations which are accessing the database pretty much continuously. 
>>> I wouldn't say that my practice managment program seems slow, although 
>>> there would be some room for improvement. I don't know if moving to SBS 
>>> 2008 and dedicating a server to SQL would help speed it up a bit, but I 
>>> suppose it may, I'm just not sure if any of the infrequent slowdowns I 
>>> see are from SQL being underpowered in my current configuaration. I 
>>> would guess that it isn't since on my personal workstation, which is 
>>> decently beefy Core i7, I rarely see slowdowns.
>>>
>>> I am trying to determine which upgrade path makes the most sense. One 
>>> option would be to only get the SBS2003 R2 upgrade, at a cost of about 
>>> $640. The other option would be to upgrade to SBS 2008 Premium. That 
>>> would require a new server (I think) and an OS upgrade, so likely a 
>>> rather large investment. Would it make sense to get the R2 upgrade with 
>>> software assurance? Would that allow me to upgrade to SBS2008 later with 
>>> minimal software cost? Or does the R2 only upgrade sound like a "dead 
>>> end" upgrade?
>>>
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
gs
4/18/2010 5:55:13 PM
I agree with Mr. SuperGumby.

I would just install SQL 2008 Express. I'm using it with one of my
clients and it runs just fine with 10 workstations. No need to spend
any more money. If you wanted to use any of the features of SBS2008,
then it might be worth the upgrade. Don't spend the money just to get
the latest if you really don't need it.

Just my two cents.


On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:22:43 +1000, "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]"
<not@your.nellie> wrote:

>How many users?
>
>It's entirely possible that you could stay with the current system and maybe 
>add a bit of RAM (SBS03 needs 4GB today regardless of anything else), maybe 
>use the free SQL 2005 Express for your database (check with supplier whether 
>Express is supported).
>
>At high user numbers the difference between full vs express becomes 
>important.
>There are also functional reasons why Express may not cut the grade.
>In most cases LOB apps will work fine on Express.
>An Express instance can be installed alongside your full version SQL 2000.
>
>"Dave" <please@reply.in.group.com> wrote in message 
>news:m6SdnTFdVvs6KVXWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> My current server is SBS 2003 Premium and my practice managment software 
>> uses a SQL 2000 DB. I also run Exchange. I do not have the SBS2003 R2 
>> upgrade.
>>
>> My practice management software no longer supports SQL 2000. Their minimum 
>> requirement is SQL 2005. My current server is a 4 year old Dell PE 2800 
>> with a 3 GHz Xeon single processor (room for another) and 2GB ram. I'm not 
>> sure if it is  64bit capable but I think it is. I have 9 workstations 
>> which are accessing the database pretty much continuously. I wouldn't say 
>> that my practice managment program seems slow, although there would be 
>> some room for improvement. I don't know if moving to SBS 2008 and 
>> dedicating a server to SQL would help speed it up a bit, but I suppose it 
>> may, I'm just not sure if any of the infrequent slowdowns I see are from 
>> SQL being underpowered in my current configuaration. I would guess that it 
>> isn't since on my personal workstation, which is decently beefy Core i7, I 
>> rarely see slowdowns.
>>
>> I am trying to determine which upgrade path makes the most sense. One 
>> option would be to only get the SBS2003 R2 upgrade, at a cost of about 
>> $640. The other option would be to upgrade to SBS 2008 Premium. That would 
>> require a new server (I think) and an OS upgrade, so likely a rather large 
>> investment. Would it make sense to get the R2 upgrade with software 
>> assurance? Would that allow me to upgrade to SBS2008 later with minimal 
>> software cost? Or does the R2 only upgrade sound like a "dead end" 
>> upgrade?
>>
>> -Dave
>> 
>
0
kevinp
4/18/2010 7:13:51 PM
With Premium, you already have the OS license for the host server as long as 
you only use that host server for virtualization, no additional roles. Then 
you have SBS 2008 as your first VM, with Exchange, SharePoint, and 
management tasks running on it. Your second VM is then the SBS 2008 Second 
Server runing SQL. (Or whatever else you want to run on it!)

Figure two processors and 16 GB of RAM, though you could _possibly_ squeeze 
by with 12 GB, but it's pretty tight, even for a small shop. And don't stint 
on the I/O subsystem. Disk access and networking are both potentially fatal 
bottlenecks in a virtualized system, and money spent here is well spent.

-- 
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel




"Dave" <please@reply.in.group.com> wrote in message 
news:iLednTtx3f4_qFbWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Thanks Charlie. I dug around a little and I don't think that I can run 
> 64-bit VM's on my current server. So I would be looking at a new server.
>
> Is there a recommended virtualization setup for premium? Would you run 
> Server 2008 as the host OS, and SBS, Exchange, and SQL as VM's?
>
> -Dave
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <Charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message 
> news:%23hOoeDf3KHA.3352@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> R2 with SA would get you 2008, but you'd still have to deal with the 
>> upgrade to 2008 pretty quick. I'd be inclined to bite the bullet and go 
>> all the way to 2008 with SA. IF your current machine supports 64-bit, AND 
>> it supports hardware virtualization AND it can hold 12-16 GB of RAM, then 
>> you could do it all by creating VMs on the current hardware (after 
>> upgrading the RAM and adding a CPU.) But I honestly think you'd be better 
>> served by going with a new server and sizing it as necessary. If you need 
>> to stay on the low cost side, you could possibly repurpose the existing 
>> server as a new SQL only server for your SBS Premium second server. That 
>> could be 32-bit or 64-bit, but I'd really want to bump the RAM up to 4 GB 
>> even if you stay with 32-bit. But migration is much simpler if you go 
>> with all new and find some other use for the existing SBS box.
>>
>> -- 
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Dave" <please@reply.in.group.com> wrote in message 
>> news:m6SdnTFdVvs6KVXWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> My current server is SBS 2003 Premium and my practice managment software 
>>> uses a SQL 2000 DB. I also run Exchange. I do not have the SBS2003 R2 
>>> upgrade.
>>>
>>> My practice management software no longer supports SQL 2000. Their 
>>> minimum requirement is SQL 2005. My current server is a 4 year old Dell 
>>> PE 2800 with a 3 GHz Xeon single processor (room for another) and 2GB 
>>> ram. I'm not sure if it is  64bit capable but I think it is. I have 9 
>>> workstations which are accessing the database pretty much continuously. 
>>> I wouldn't say that my practice managment program seems slow, although 
>>> there would be some room for improvement. I don't know if moving to SBS 
>>> 2008 and dedicating a server to SQL would help speed it up a bit, but I 
>>> suppose it may, I'm just not sure if any of the infrequent slowdowns I 
>>> see are from SQL being underpowered in my current configuaration. I 
>>> would guess that it isn't since on my personal workstation, which is 
>>> decently beefy Core i7, I rarely see slowdowns.
>>>
>>> I am trying to determine which upgrade path makes the most sense. One 
>>> option would be to only get the SBS2003 R2 upgrade, at a cost of about 
>>> $640. The other option would be to upgrade to SBS 2008 Premium. That 
>>> would require a new server (I think) and an OS upgrade, so likely a 
>>> rather large investment. Would it make sense to get the R2 upgrade with 
>>> software assurance? Would that allow me to upgrade to SBS2008 later with 
>>> minimal software cost? Or does the R2 only upgrade sound like a "dead 
>>> end" upgrade?
>>>
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>
>
> 

0
Charlie
4/19/2010 4:49:29 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

1.0 to 1.2 upgrade error (AD and SQLAccessGroup)
I am attempting to upgrade to 1.2. I have CRM server and SQL on the same server. 1.0 works fine and I have all the upgrades in place as far as I can tell. During 1.2 setup i get the error: Setup was unable to install Microsoft CRM Server. Setup was unable to add the account to SQLAccessGroup in Active Directory. There is no such object on the server. (80072030) The SQLAccessGroup does in fact exist in AD and I am installing using the administrator account. Thanks. How many DC's do you have? "Don Bishop" <newsgroup@affinigent.com> wrote in message news:016a01...

Vista x86 Upgrade to Win7 x64
I have purchased an Acer Aspire 6930G laptop that came with Vista x86 (32 bit) installed but with a free 'upgrade' to Windows 7 x86. I have a 'desktop' and an update copy of Windows 7 (legit) that came with both 32 and 64 bit disks. I have installed the 64 bit version onto the desktop. I want to install the 64 bit version of Win7 onto my laptop but Microsoft insist they will only provide the 32 bit version as I am 'updating' from a 32 bit version. (seems that they are being simply bloody minded). My question is can I successfully install the 64 bit ve...

Document Recovery question
Microsoft Powerpoint 2002 recently crashed while I was working on a poster, which was almost done and unsaved. The document recovery opened up automatically when Powerpoint automatically restarted, with two available files: the original version of the file (which was just a template) and the recovered version, saved with AutoRecover minutes before the program crashed. That is obviously the version of the file that I want, but when I click on it and tell it to open or Save As, nothing happens. Rather: all that happens is, on the bottom left, for a microsecond it says "Mi...

Outlook Folder List Questions
2 Questions: 1) Is there a way to change the font on the Folder List? 2) After adding other mailboxes to your account, is there a way to alpha-sort them on your Folder List? Both of these are for Outlook 2002. Thanks! Stacey L. Scott Client Support Center Operations Target Corporation In news:1d7ff01c423c0$b3ac19f0$a301280a@phx.gbl, Stacey wrote: > 2 Questions: > > 1) Is there a way to change the font on the Folder List? This is tied to one of your Windows font settings, I believe -- try changing some of the fonts in Control Panel | Display | Appearance tab. If you're ...

Headquarters Question
how r u doing all ? I have a client who is interested in HQ for his chain store, but the feature he wanted as buying from store A and returning to store B is not existed in HQ. Correct me if I am wrong for this. Did you guys any third party add-ons were developped for solving this issue, or anyone think they could provide a solution. Give a email and let's talk about this. My email is jiyang1@yahoo.com. Take care! Jiyang ...

Question on the Feature Comparison shape (in Charting Shapes)
How do I modify the Feature Comparison shape (in Charting Shapes) with more than 10 rows/columns in Visio 2007 I'm trying to build a chart that is 12 columns, by 18 rows. The shape is "mis-behaving" when I try to change it. Thank you! JLH Hello JLH, The Feature Comparison shape is really a grouped shape that contains 10 rows and 10 columns that you choose to reveal or hide depending on the custom properties you set ('Set Fields...'). So if you want to extend this you can either edit the shape and add more rows and columns to the group (bear in mind that each ...

So close and yet so far (IF ISNA question)
I'm using the following formula =INDEX(QB6!$A:$A,MATCH($B31,QB6!$B:$B,0)) This generally works, but occasionally it doesn't find a match on page QB6, in which case I get the #N/A! error. Instead of getting that error, I would like to force a value into that cell (a defined number). I'm trying to tweak it using the IF ISNA commands but just can't seem to get it right. Thanks in advance Try this: =IF(ISERROR(INDEX(QB6!$A:$A,MATCH($B31,QB6!$B:$B,0)))=TRUE,"THERE IS AN ERROR",INDEX(QB6!$A:$A,MATCH($B31,QB6!$B:$B,0))) You can replace the "There is an error...

Number format question #2
I have the following formula: ="*First year estimated home sales of "&C35&" with 15% growth rate in subsequent years." I want to have this statement adjust to changes made in the number (C35). However, this is what the phrase looks like: *First year estimated home sales of 67188 with 15% growth rate in subsequent years. How can I get the number to format show the comma? -- Joker "...God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me." Gen. 21:6 ="*First year estimated home sales of " & text(C35,"#,##0")...

Cannot log on to the system After upgrade from 1.2 to 3.0
Hi The CRM Server 1.2 upgrade to 3.0 and SQL Server 2000 sp4 in the Same box. Windows Server 2003 SP1 Environment After upgraded from CRM 1.2 and everything went good. When i tried to log on to the CRM 3.0 i recieved the following error: Authentication Error Microsoft CRM could not log you on to the system. Make sure your user record is enabled and that you have been assigned at least one security role. For more information, contact your system administrator. I have checked the authetication is checked to Windows integrated but received the same error message. Any help ...

newbie question #5
Hi all, I'm fairly new with working with exchange, and recently came across this problem: I want to receive e-mail from another domain that we bought. There are plenty of tutorials on the web that explain how this is done, and they all come down to the same: add it to the recipient policies. And so I did. The policy is made, all users have their extra address, I applied the policy, I updated the recipient update services... but still all e-mail to this domain arrives at the postmasters' inbox. Another thing: internally it seems to work fine. So it just applies to e-mail coming...

Active document opened in IE questions
Hi all I have created an active document application. When I typed a file name in IE's location bar in WinMe, IE started my application to display the file I want to know, by what mean, IE send message to my application to open the file? If I want to get the message sent to my application by IE, how t do it Second, when typed another file's name in IE's location bar, IE first use my application to open the file , then it told my application to close the first file, errors ocurs , when my application get the close message, the second file is also closed, what can I do many th...

Work Flow Monitor Question
Does anyone know whether or not the WorkFlow Monitor will tell you whether or not your workflow is running in an infinite loop? I have created a complex workflow and before I test it I want to know if the Monitor will tell me if it is looping......... No it won't. You would be able to figure it out though by seeing that it isn't ending. Matt Parks MVP - Microsoft CRM ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:55:35 -0700, "John" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: Does anyone know whether ...

Match/ Index question
I want to use a named chart in a match lookup function as a part of my vlookup equation. The problem when I am encountering is it is reading the name of the chart as just a cell value and not pulling the information from that chart. Does anyone know how to embed the name of a chart so you can use it in a function. Below is an example of my problem. =vlookup(a1,index(r202:r206,match(d214,s202:s206,0) the 'r202:r206' are my charts, but excel is just reading them as cells hi Cory, you can not use the cell address to name a cell range -- isabelle Le 2012-02-08 16:14, Cory Tilto...

Switchboard Question 12-13-07
I noticed that the switchboard is only limited to 8 menu selections per switchboard. Can that be increased? If so, how can I modify it? Thank you, On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:06:00 -0800, TomP wrote: > I noticed that the switchboard is only limited to 8 menu selections per > switchboard. Can that be increased? If so, how can I modify it? > > Thank you, Adding a 9th or 10th etc. button is no problem, however you cannot edit the extra buttons using the switchboard manager. Any changes on those buttons will have to be done manually. There are better methods of creating a switch...

some questions about contact activity in Outlook 2007
Hello, I have several questions about one contact->View->Activities 1)Very often (not always) this list is empty. When I change the selection with "View:" and go back to "View: All elements" I can see the elements. 2)It's there a better way than the search when a contact have more than one email account? When I open the properties from the contact folder and open the Activity tabulator, I can only select folders from the same PST file. 3)When I try to insert a notice or another element with Insert->insert elements this element appears in the "Notice"...

Upgrading the CPU?
I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my Dell Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and available), but I had a couple of general questions: Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to need to be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection features of the apps? IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or does it take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally trigger it? Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal SATA2 drive, I am now get...

8.0 Upgrade
We are going to be performing an upgrade to 8.0 in the next month. Next week we will be doing a test migration and have 3+ weeks scheduled for testing. Does anyone have any documentation of things to consider or issues they had with the upgrade. Anything would be helpful, as I am just trying to ensure all the bases are covered. Thanks, Zach Morgan zachary.morgan@cbs.fiserv.com What are you upgrading from? "Zach Morgan" <ZachMorgan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B4011720-BF9F-4155-AF3C-131AEB8FFD0E@microsoft.com... > We are going to be performing...

Question (possible OT)
What are the differences between C++ and C#? Only brief response required. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/cscon/html/vclrfcomparisonbetweenccsharp.asp -------------------------------------------- Manish Agarwal <manishkrishan@hotmail.com> http://personal.vsnl.com/mkag "Hamish Dean" <h.dean@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:741Jc.34$N77.37515@news.xtra.co.nz... > What are the differences between C++ and C#? > > Only brief response required. > > ...

Still battling 1.2>3.0 upgrade
Hi, Well, it's been six months and I still haven't got it. What I have gotten good at is moving SQL databases around and restoring from backup images. I've gotten that down to under 25 minutes for both the system and CRM+CRM website drives. Us newbies just beat our heads against the box until it breaks, restore, read, read, read and try again. First it was the ImportDefaultDataAction failure, then the GrantDatabaseAccessAction failure, now I am hitting a UpgradeCustomizationsAction failure, Object reference not set to an instance of the object, sheesh. I've learned...

Question on purchase return
I have a purchase line for 100 units for $1 each. I received these 100 units and thereafter returned back 60 of these units (through a return transaction of type Return). The Received not invoiced report shows the outstanding as $40. When I go to purchase invoice, the purchase line is pulling up for $100. I was expecting to pull up the purchase line for $40. Have I done anything wrong here? What is the correct process? KT Well, it sounds like you did the steps correctly. The only thing you did not say is did you do a return or a return w/credit. The Return w/Credit assumes you are ...

Pivot table question #4
Hello all, I am working on a Excel data table. The 3 columns are year(i.e. 2011), dollar amount, purchase dollar amount. I have been asked to group by year in the following buckets. 0-2 years 2-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years I seem to be able to group by 2 year intervals, 3 year intervals etc, but cannot seem to group as I have been asked. That is 2 years, then 1 year, then 2 years, then 5 years. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! TimD On Feb 10, 7:36=A0pm, tdkooch <malor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > I am working on a Excel data table. =A0The 3...

XP Upgrade
Can I run XP Pro upgrade on Windows 2000 or do I need to do a fresh XP Pro install? Thanks. KenP KenP <KenP@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Can I run XP Pro upgrade on Windows 2000 or do I need to do a fresh XP > Pro > install? > > Thanks. > > KenP If I'm not mistaken, it should work just fine upgrading from win2000. -- Jason "KenP" <KenP@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B00F9489-9E56-4A14-B43B-33A927C98D23@microsoft.com... > Can I run XP Pro upgrade on Windows 2000 or do I need to do ...

Search Question
Outlook XP I am searching for "NM" in my mailbox. I ONLY want "NM", not "entertaiNMent" or other words that contain NM. However, I can't seem to find a way to search for just the letters I want. I even tried (space)NM(space) and that didn't work either. Any ideas? Thanks! Doreen I answered my own question...I should have done "(space)NM(space)", with the quotes instead of without them. "Doreen" <doreo715@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uG6CkCMoEHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > Outlook XP > > I am searching...

Quick Little Formula Question
Currently I am using the following formula - =SUMIF($J$24:$J$75,">0",$B$24:$B$75) It is being used to sum data in column B, which contains weeks 1-52 i the year, with data in every cell, despite the year not being over. I want to report only data up until the current week however so... It looks at Column J, which contains a value UP UNTIL the current wee of the year, but contains an #REF! error for any other weeks (becaus it links to a sheet which works on a by week basis). So the ">0" is used to pull only data that is not #REF!. However, now need to pull negat...

Upgrading to Money 2004 Premium
Hi, I just upgraded my money 2003 to Money 2004 Premium, and am being told that my money file with all my data is not compatable, has any one else had this problem, and if yes what was the work around. -- Cheers Catherine PM Community Team This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. In microsoft.public.money, Catherine Feldhausen [MSFT] wrote: > >I just upgraded my money 2003 to Money 2004 Premium, and am being told that >my money file with all my data is not compatable, has any one else had this >problem, and if yes what was the wo...