Pros and Cons of Exchange 2003 on W2K DC

Our network currently has just a W2K file server to which i am about to
add a new W2K server running exchange 2003.

I am trying to weigh up the pros and cons of having the new server as a
DC as well in order to add some redundancy.


richard.

Al
Thu Apr 06 09:56:59 CDT 2006

Redundancy to what? If you're thinking that in the case of a DC failure that
it would be helpful, it's not. If you install Exchange on a DC, it will
only ever use that DC as it's DC. That implies it should also become a GC
in order for it to work correctly, but you get the idea. It would be more
resilient for the domain to have more than one DC, but it wouldn't help
Exchange in this case. Would hurt either.

If you don't make it a DC, consider putting Exchange 2003 on Windows 2003
vs. Windows 2000. Although it works on both, it would be best to spend the
effort to put it on W2K3 now.

-ajm

<richard.hubbard@noclimb.com> wrote in message
news:1144334092.704806.18530@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Our network currently has just a W2K file server to which i am about to
> add a new W2K server running exchange 2003.
>
> I am trying to weigh up the pros and cons of having the new server as a
> DC as well in order to add some redundancy.
>
>
> richard.
>

richard
Fri Apr 07 06:24:40 CDT 2006

i was thinking about what the consequences would be to the exchange
server and connected users if the file server (and only dc) is down.
I guess the correct thing to do is have another server as a dc, it just
feels overkill on a small network.


richard.

Al
Wed Apr 12 07:27:13 CDT 2006

Ideally, you'd have two DC's in any network. That's a best practice. You'd
also separate the Exchange server from the DC's to take advantage of that
design.
For any size network it can be overkill if your requirements don't warrant
it.

<richard.hubbard@noclimb.com> wrote in message
news:1144409080.090043.282790@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>i was thinking about what the consequences would be to the exchange
> server and connected users if the file server (and only dc) is down.
> I guess the correct thing to do is have another server as a dc, it just
> feels overkill on a small network.
>
>
> richard.
>