Which server to put SQL Server 2005 Express Edition on?

[pcwilson]

Hi Guys

I have two new servers arriving shortly.

Server 1:
Windows Server 2003 R2 x64 domain controller
1 x 2.66GHz Quad core Xeon
4GB RAM
3 x 300GB 15K SAS (RAID5)

Server 2:
Windows Server 2003 R2 x64 member server
2 x 2.66GHz Quad core Xeon
8GB RAM
2 x 73GB 15K SAS (RAID1)
3 x 300GB 15K SAS (RAID5)

Server 1 will be doing DNS, DHCP, WINS, AD, file and print for 50 users.
Server 2 will be doing Exchange 2007 for the same 50 users.

I'm trying to decide which server to put SQL Server 2005 Express Edition on. It will host a 350MB database for about 25 users.

Any DBAs willing to say which server they'd install SQL on, and why?

Cheers
Phil

[LordGrover]

Server 3 would be my choice. DC is already pretty busy and exchange is such a pig I wouldn't risk running anything else major on it.

[SystemParanoia]

+1

although, if your feeling brave, you could run another copy of server in vmware on the exchange box and load the sql onto that instance, so it has its own independent environment.... kinda..

Edited by SystemParanoia on Tuesday 5th February 16:20

[pcwilson]

LordGrover said:

Server 3 would be my choice. DC is already pretty busy and exchange is such a pig I wouldn't risk running anything else major on it.

Budget won't stretch to another server unfortunatley. If you had to pick, which would you go for?

[pcwilson]

SystemParanoia said:

+1

although, if your feeling brave, you could run another copy of server in vmware on the exchange box and load the sql onto that instance, so it has its own independent environment.... kinda..

Edited by SystemParanoia on Tuesday 5th February 16:20

Hadn't thought of that. Do I need an additional Windows Server license for the virtual server?

[SystemParanoia]

yes.

as it is "virtually" another independent machine.

[buggalugs]

All things being equal I'd go for server 1 myself; it seems like a more even distribution of load. The CPU in that box will be doing jack otherwise, whereas the chips in the Exchange box will probably be running realtime anti-spam and anti-virus as well as all the exchange stuff.
I wonder if you could reference the SQL service using a different DNS name to make moving it later on a bit easier?

[kiwisr]

Server 2 for sure, databases like disk access - it would be better to stick it on a server that already doesn't have a disk intensive application running (AD - another database)

[TonyToniTone]

How many DC's will you have in total, if the answer is one then thats the server to put it on without doubt for all the reasons buggalugs listed..

or just run perfmon and see which has most free resources..

[pcwilson]

TonyToniTone said:

How many DC's will you have in total, if the answer is one then thats the server to put it on without doubt for all the reasons buggalugs listed..

or just run perfmon and see which has most free resources..

The 2 new servers described in my original post will be at my Glasgow site (50 users). I will have two identical servers at my Edinburgh site (another 50 users). One server in Glasgow will be a DC with a replica DC in Edinburgh. I have a 2Mbps leased line between the sites.

[m12_nathan]

Exchange IO and SQL IO do not mix well on the same box.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/b...

See number 6.

[Munter]

pcwilson said:

SystemParanoia said:

+1

although, if your feeling brave, you could run another copy of server in vmware on the exchange box and load the sql onto that instance, so it has its own independent environment.... kinda..

Edited by SystemParanoia on Tuesday 5th February 16:20

Hadn't thought of that. Do I need an additional Windows Server license for the virtual server?

Seriously dont put an IO intensive workload into a VMware VM running within another OS. Well at least dont plan on it without testing it. IO performance is not good.

Me I wouldn't feel comfortable mixing Exchange and SQL. If it's not a large network I wouldn't think the DC is going to be doing much. Stick it on there would be my plan.

[m12_nathan]

Munter said:

pcwilson said:

SystemParanoia said:

+1

although, if your feeling brave, you could run another copy of server in vmware on the exchange box and load the sql onto that instance, so it has its own independent environment.... kinda..

Edited by SystemParanoia on Tuesday 5th February 16:20

Hadn't thought of that. Do I need an additional Windows Server license for the virtual server?

Seriously dont put an IO intensive workload into a VMware VM running within another OS. Well at least dont plan on it without testing it. IO performance is not good.

Me I wouldn't feel comfortable mixing Exchange and SQL. If it's not a large network I wouldn't think the DC is going to be doing much. Stick it on there would be my plan.

I agree.

Wasn't there also a recommendation not to put DHCP onto a domain controller?

[agent006]

SystemParanoia said:

yes.

as it is "virtually" another independent machine.

One copy of W2003 Enterprise will allow you to run 4 VMs on top of it with no additional licensing required.

[kiwisr]

I really wouldn't put it on the DC, not just because of resource issues but because of security as well.

Additional you cannot install SQL on a DC running as a Network or Local System service. You have to use a domain account. Additionally you can never run DCROMO while SQL is installed - if you ever run into trouble later on you could be screwed.

[pcwilson]

kiwisr said:

I really wouldn't put it on the DC, not just because of resource issues but because of security as well.

Additional you cannot install SQL on a DC running as a Network or Local System service. You have to use a domain account. Additionally you can never run DCROMO while SQL is installed - if you ever run into trouble later on you could be screwed.

Bugger. Just when I thought I'd made my mind up...

[pcwilson]

kiwisr said:

I really wouldn't put it on the DC, not just because of resource issues but because of security as well.

Additional you cannot install SQL on a DC running as a Network or Local System service. You have to use a domain account. Additionally you can never run DCROMO while SQL is installed - if you ever run into trouble later on you could be screwed.

There appears to be a workaround to the problem you describe, which gives me some hope:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929665

[TonyToniTone]

I dont think you will have a problem puting it on a DC look at all the services SBS run on a single box for up to 75 users..


AD, ISA, SharePoint, Exchange, WSUS, Fax, SQL, IIS etc

[theboss]

Personally I'd stick it on the DC, only I'd buy a fourth disk and have 2 x RAID1 arrays to try and minimise disk contention between SQL and the various AD and related services.

Exchange and SQL on the same box is not a good idea as others have stressed.

SQL Server on a DC is a perfectly valid and supported configuration (albeit not 'recommended') *providing* that you promote it before you install SQL and then don't demote it afterwards.

I'd also consider sticking 32-bit Windows on the DC or failing that get a proper copy of SQL Standard x64 - I'm not so keen on the idea of running a 32-bit database engine (SQL Express) on a 64-bit OS. I'm sure it's supported though.

ETA just noticed you're also using the DC as a file and print server - in which case this definitely strengthens the case for buying more disks and considering 32-bit Windows unless you are certain you have signed 64-bit drivers for all of your printers.

Edited by theboss on Wednesday 6th February 00:30

[GnuBee]

Agree - stick it on the DC but definitely throw more disk at it and if you can go for a disk setup that will allow you to place the log and data files on 2 different, physical volumes and keep those volumes purely for those tasks.