gudel
System Lord
join:2004-06-03
Santa Barbara, CA
 ·Cox HSI
| 2003 SBS
I'm trying to see if Win 2003 SBS is a good fit for an office with 10-15 people. Mostly they need file sharing for Office 2007 files, backup, AD, & firewall; no internal email with Exchange.
I'm used to Win 2008/2003 Enterprise, not familiar with the 2003 SBS.
What do I get and can do with the Win 2003 SBS, what does it come with? |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | »www.microsoft.com/technet/prodte···res.mspx |
|
craig70130
Premium
join:2004-04-27
New Orleans, LA | reply to gudel
If they don't need/want Exchange, then no. It's cheaper to purchase 2003 or 2008 and the appropriate number of CALs. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| said by craig70130  :If they don't need/want Exchange, then no. It's cheaper to purchase 2003 or 2008 and the appropriate number of CALs. Actually, no it's not. SBS 2003 can be had for $599 with 10 CALs. Server 2003 Standard starts at $999 with 5 CALs.
You don't have to install Exchange. All the add-ons are optional. |
|
DC DSL
Stays crunchy even in milk
Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
·Covad Communications
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to gudel
The SBS is the one and only forest and PDC allowed, so if they have any anticipated need to establish trusts or become part of a larger forest, they'll need to migrate to a standalone SKU. SBS does allow additional domain servers that are subordinate to it for file/print/apps. Also, standalone mail servers, Blackberry servers, or other wireless push are extremely difficult to integrate in an SBS environment. AFAIK, Windows Mobile smartphones are the only sanctioned wireless devices that can do OTA sync (non-tethered) in an SBS environment, and *only* if Exchange is installed.
You don't have to use Exchange as the mail server. I have quite a few small clients with SBS that use their domain host or ISP email servers, but utilize the shared messaging folders, contacts, and calendars that Exchange provides. Most of them now have Treos or Qs and wireless remote makes them all happy campers...a lot less mess than configuring each of the handsets to access their email accounts.
Unless you have a specific business reason to go with a standalone SKU, I'd go for SBS.
--
There is no giant fur-bearing trout. |
|
morph3ous
Premium
join:2002-05-16
Miami, FL | You can also have multiple domain controllers with SBS as long as the SBS server has all of the FSMO roles. |
|
gudel
System Lord
join:2004-06-03
Santa Barbara, CA
·Cox HSI
| reply to DC DSL
said by DC DSL :The SBS is the one and only forest and PDC allowed, so if they have any anticipated need to establish trusts or become part of a larger forest, they'll need to migrate to a standalone SKU. SBS does allow additional domain servers that are subordinate to it for file/print/apps. Also, standalone mail servers, Blackberry servers, or other wireless push are extremely difficult to integrate in an SBS environment. AFAIK, Windows Mobile smartphones are the only sanctioned wireless devices that can do OTA sync (non-tethered) in an SBS environment, and *only* if Exchange is installed. You don't have to use Exchange as the mail server. I have quite a few small clients with SBS that use their domain host or ISP email servers, but utilize the shared messaging folders, contacts, and calendars that Exchange provides. Most of them now have Treos or Qs and wireless remote makes them all happy campers...a lot less mess than configuring each of the handsets to access their email accounts. Unless you have a specific business reason to go with a standalone SKU, I'd go for SBS. Thanks. It will be only one domain, nothing complicated. There will be file server and web server for the needs. Email will be from ISP, but that Exchange features sharing message folders would be very useful. |
|
DC DSL
Stays crunchy even in milk
Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC | reply to morph3ous
Only 1 SBS box that is the PDC is permitted in an SBS domain. Any other servers must be subordinate domain member servers or BDCs.
--
There is no giant fur-bearing trout. |
|
morph3ous
Premium
join:2002-05-16
Miami, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| BDC and PDC is no longer relevant to AD in native 2003 mode. Unless you mean the PDC FSMO role. The second DC, as long as it does not hold any of the FSMO roles can co-exist with an SBS machine. The second DC can also be set as a global catalog to provide further redundancy for your AD domain so that you can keep the domain going if the SBS box goes down.
Not having the FSMO roles does not make the second DC a BDC. It will still actively support the domain and reduce some of the load from your SBS server. |
|
Shark_615
join:2006-01-17
Pickering, ON | reply to gudel
I have a network of the same size all with XP clients and SBS. Works well, very easy to setup and so far stable and fast. |
|
DC DSL
Stays crunchy even in milk
Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
·Covad Communications
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to morph3ous
There's a way around everything, but my MS contacts here in the branch are quite emphatic that though SBS can be made to coexist with other DCs it is not a supported configuration. The BDC & PDC roles are still quite relevant in both Original and R2 because of how the SBS overlay hooks into Server 2003...there is a lot of un- and not-well-documented stuff going on behind the scenes having to do with security and sharing.
The most common problem people run into if they try promoting another box to a DC is sysvol not mounting correctly or at all. Even though it may appear that clients are authenticating against the "other" box, they are still generating calls back to the SBS box that require SID matching...if it's not physically available, things get weird, or the network fails completely.
YMMV, but it is definitely not something one should even suggest to someone who doesn't have a lot of intimate knowledge of how Server and SBS work. If a site starts pushing the limits of what an SBS domain can comfortably support, they should upsize to a better-fitting server platform instead of trying to shoehorn stuff in that may or may not create more costly headaches.
--
There is no giant fur-bearing trout. |
|
morph3ous
Premium
join:2002-05-16
Miami, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Comcast Formerly ..
4 edits | DC DSL thanks for the clarification. SBS is definitely a strange product. I have very mixed feelings about it, but must use it due to cost and licensing issues.
Please let me know of any resources that you know of about a non-SBS DC generating calls to an SBS box that require SID matching when in a non-SBS environment it would not be required. This may help me solve one small issue that I am having. I have not run into the sysvol problem. In my limited testing (VM test environment) that primarily happens on 2003 R2 boxes when the windows firewall is enabled.
(Please send it through PM as I do not want to thread-jack more than I already have.)
Thanks. |
|
fcisler
Premium
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY
| reply to gudel
SBS is good when it is used exactly as designed - Small Business. If there's another server, or you are attempting migration (IE: you want to join the domain, demote other server, etc) then stay away from it.
IOW, if your going into a "fresh install" then it works good. I use it quite frequently and at first was not sure how I liked it, but now i'm a fan. The usual rule of thumb I go by is that if your going to buy a brand new server, and have NO plans of buying/installing anything else, stick with the SBS server....otherwise you get a 2k3 machine. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to gudel
Quick SBS 2003 question, I installed it a few years ago for a friend's small company on a slightly marginal server, and now he has the money to upgrade it since he's added a few more people in the office. Is there a simple process for just doing a hardware swap so everything's running on the new hardware? Simple enough with full Exchange but I'm a bit leery of all the SBS pitfalls. I don't deal with it enough to know all the tricks or even what install options there are. |
|
DC DSL
Stays crunchy even in milk
Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
·Covad Communications
·Verizon Online DSL
| First, if SBS came with the hardware (not a full retail SKU), you'll have to either purchase SBS with the new box, or a retail copy. (SBS bundled with a box is licensed only for that box.)
Second, you'll have issues if you haven't upgraded to R2, and the new hardware comes with R2 bundled. On top of this, SBS2008 is expected in November. If you're buying a new box, it might be worthwhile splitting the difference and getting it without SBS pre-loaded, then purchasing a retail copy of 2008 when it hits the street.
Here's a detailed migration white paper that gives all the gory details: »technet.microsoft.com/en-us/libr···454.aspx.
The process is not for the faint of heart, and does not always work exactly as written because of some installation-specific "quirks". Issues won't always arise, but be ready to cope with having to start from scratch if something doesn't go right. SBS is very temperamental, so if one of the intermediate steps fails, the whole install is likely to be DOA, or at least schizo: you can't "skip that part for now" especially if there are any issues with AD, DNS, or GPs.
For any migration, in addition to full server backups, also dump all the mailboxes and public folders via Outlook to PST files and store them safely. Be sure you have good backups of any SQL databases, and original installation media for all the apps used at the site.
Personally, unless there are critical dependencies on a particular part of SBS in the organization, I find it much easier to gen a new box, restore only data, and redo the desktops to join the party. It's also a good opportunity to force people to do some housecleaning, and create a clean baseline for everything.
--
There is no giant fur-bearing trout. |
|
elias
Premium,VIP
join:2000-07-24
Miami, FL
clubs:  | reply to jester121
Try a Swing Migration?
»www.sbsmigration.com |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| reply to DC DSL
I don't think it was initially bundled with hardware, so we'd just move the existing license to a new server. But the rest of your post makes me think we're better off just restoring from PSTs and reconfiguring from scratch then restoring files from a backup. It's a very basic setup, user accounts and very minimal directory security for user folders.
I always thought that SBS is one product that really isn't at all suited to Small Businesses, unless the VAR/consulting provider is what they're concerned about. Hardware prices being what they are, 2 servers running Win2k3 and an Exchange license + CALs will almost certainly cost less when you factor in all the extra services that the company has to pay for.
THanks for the advice! |
|
craig70130
Premium
join:2004-04-27
New Orleans, LA
1 edit | 2003 Server + Exchange + CALs most definitely costs more than SBS.
I've done the 'swing migration' before as well as the Microsoft procedure on technet and I find redoing everything from scratch to be the simplest route.
There are some shortcuts the many don't know about or choose not to use that can speed up the process - File/Settings transfer wizard on the workstation before and after migration, using the servername/connectcomputer wizard to unjoin the PC from the old domain and connect to the new domain, assign the user to the PC and attach it to the new computer object in about 30 seconds, etc.
I did a client a few weeks ago, 45 workstations, and spent less than 10 minutes on each machine - most of them I did over the weekend via RDP.
Edit: I guess I should mention that I was bringing them from 2000 SBS to 2003 SBS and recreated a new domain (for a number of reasons). If you plan on keeping your same domain, swing migration is your easiest route. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| I was kind of in a rush when I fired off that response so I wasn't clear. I've just talked to so many small business customers who got trapped into SBS early on and got hosed in licensing and consulting expenses as they grew. And none of them really understood what the limitations they were getting roped into when they bought SBS in the first place.
Sounds like they're making the migration process a bit friendlier now, but the whole SBS program has always seemed like a Partner Enrichment program rather than something customers actually asked for, wanted, or needed.
(Note -- I make a living as a consultant so I'm not looking for a fight here, just griping a bit). |
|
elias
Premium,VIP
join:2000-07-24
Miami, FL
clubs:
| said by jester121 :I was kind of in a rush when I fired off that response so I wasn't clear. I've just talked to so many small business customers who got trapped into SBS early on and got hosed in licensing and consulting expenses as they grew. And none of them really understood what the limitations they were getting roped into when they bought SBS in the first place. I agree. SBS is good only if your company doesn't plan to grow all that much in the foreseeable future. We have had many clients that need to break-out of SBS and it's just such a hassle. |
|
