SBS 2003 and 2003 Server, help!!

[mitchp]

Hi,

I'm needing a little network help here! I dont have agreat deal of experience beyond a single server domain.

I've got 50 users in the head office where an SBS2003 is DC running Exchange,IIS,ISA & SQL. It handles pretty much everthing bar storage.

I Have a remote office with 6 users connected to the head office via a hardware IPSEC VPN, which has worked fantastically well for the last 18months.

The remote office is now set to expand (15) and i need to put a server up there. It will need to be running Exchange and I assume do some AD replication from/to head office?

I intend to keep the VPN active and create a WAN. Is it possible to have a std 2003 server on a domain where the DC is an SBS? Would i set the remote server as DC? would this cause a conflict across the VPN? Would the users be able to physically work in either office like they currently can do?

Any help or pointers would be appreciated

Cheers

Mitch

[malman]

Yes you can have a another 2003 server acting as a DC and it will replicate but it must be in the same domain. This will give you local authentication, group policy processing (per site if required) and DNS. Local file and print for the office too.

You can add other exchange servers but you must buy Exchange CALs for the users/devices. Your SBS CALs cover you for file and print on additional servers.

www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/evaluation/faq/netsec.mspx

>> Edited by malman on Saturday 27th May 14:29

>> Edited by malman on Saturday 27th May 14:31

[mitchp]

Thankyou, thats very useful.

My preference was to upgrade the adsl connection to sdsl at both sites and continue to use the VPN, but unfortunately sdsl isnt available at the head office (in the middle of nowhere) and a leased line is prohibitive due to cost.

Thanks again

Mitch

[malman]

Having the new server with dc, file/print, dns and exchange at the remote office will reduce traffic between sites to AD replication, intra site mail and any remote user traffic. So will a 256K DSL uplink not cover you?

[mitchp]

Oh yes, thats plenty. I wasn't being clear - My preference was to continue with the current setup but just increase the performance to cope with additional traffic, I'm all for making life easy and was trying to get around having another server to look after!

Yearly costs would be in the 10k region. As well as it does work, 10k is totally unjustifyable - so, remote server it is.