I'd like somebody to advice me about the best deployment options for Exchange and Server 2003 or 2008. Beginning from a small company that wishes to have everything in one box because of a limited budget, to a mid-size company that seeks to get the best out of its investment. From a hardware point of view, what's the best? What's the best practice in mixing different network services in one box, and separate others in different boxes. For example, Exchange, SQL Server, BlackBerry Enterprise Server, Domain Controllers, etc. If it is possible to have somebody to give a guide for a gradual upgrading for different phases of a company's development. Thanks so much,David Santamaria - Network Systems Engineer

Hi David, For Exchange server, how many users do you have? I would suggest Virtualization for SQL,Blackberry and for exchange also you can go for virtualized environment. I wouldn't recommend you to install the server applications on one server. Create different virtual machine for different applications. Gulab | MCITP: Exchange 2010-2007 | Lync Server 2010 | Windows Server 2008 | Skype: Exchange.Ranger | Blog: www.ExchangeRanger.Blogspot.com

Hi Gulab, Now we have 156 users at the HQ, but the idea is to integrate the branches as well. There will be about 850-1000 users! And I don't want to make a mess out of this, but go step by step, do you know what I mean? I've thought about virtualization, but I have an obstacle to overcome: to convince the board to implement it... I need first to make a presentation how this platform would look like from the hardware point of view (advantages/disadvantages, etc.), and then how it'd look like from the virtualization point of view. They are really skeptical about virtualization because they have the fear that having many server applications in one box might be problematic if the box shuts down for any reason. I need to present an ordered layout of the platform, and explain mainly its advantages, for example: this is the main DC server box with this characteristics, then this another DC server box for replication and failover purposes, etc... and so on. Then going explaining the upgrade according to the company growth and geographical expansion. For the beginning, what's the best hardware-server application relationship layout? Then, what server applications have to be decentralized (in other separate box). At the end, what'd be the best virtualization-server application relationship layout? I mean, the best modular design. What are your suggestions and recommendations? I'd appreciate it. Thanks a lot!David Santamaria - Network Systems Engineer

Hi David, As you will going to have around 1000, hence I wouldn't suggest for virtual servers. 1000 mailboxes server should be robust and you will get it in hardware not in virtual servers. 1: You can install all roles of exchange server on one server. 2: Install SQL and BB on one server. ( It's not recommended though). SQL is back end for BB so it shouldn't be issue. 3: If you are going to use SQL as you are going to use Exchange rigorously than I would strongly suggest installing it on single server not along with BB. 4: You can install exchange server on DC but it's strongly not recommended. Total you will need 2-3 server for Exchange,BB,SQL and DC. Let me know if you have any questions.Gulab | MCITP: Exchange 2010-2007 | Lync Server 2010 | Windows Server 2008 | Skype: Exchange.Ranger | Blog: www.ExchangeRanger.Blogspot.com

1000 mailboxes server should be robust and you will get it in hardware not in virtual servers. I don't think this statement is neccessarily true. If you plan accordingly it should be fine with a virtual Exchange 2010 MBX role. I mean, why would Microsoft otherwise support it if there was some inherant weakness in virtualization? Make use of the Exchange 2010 Mailbox Server Role Requirements Calculator to get it right. ... and from an Exchange Server perspective; try to refrain from installing Exchange on a Domain Controller as this introduces some unneccessary challanges like restoration procedures.Jesper Bernle | Microsoft Community Contributor 2011 Awardee

Hi David, As you will going to have around 1000, hence I wouldn't suggest for virtual servers. 1000 mailboxes server should be robust and you will get it in hardware not in virtual servers. 1: You can install all roles of exchange server on one server. 2: Install SQL and BB on one server. ( It's not recommended though). SQL is back end for BB so it shouldn't be issue. 3: If you are going to use SQL as you are going to use Exchange rigorously than I would strongly suggest installing it on single server not along with BB. 4: You can install exchange server on DC but it's strongly not recommended. Total you will need 2-3 server for Exchange,BB,SQL and DC. Let me know if you have any questions.Gulab | MCITP: Exchange 2010-2007 | Lync Server 2010 | Windows Server 2008 | Skype: Exchange.Ranger | Blog: www.ExchangeRanger.Blogspot.com

@ Jesper: They are not going to deploy the servers on VM. Microsoft support almost all Virtualization vendors. Personally I have experienced that there are issues with VM but another thing I saw was the server will reboot quickly ;) Personally I wouldn't go for VM for 1000 or More Mailboxes environment. Cheers,Gulab | MCITP: Exchange 2010-2007 | Lync Server 2010 | Windows Server 2008 | Skype: Exchange.Ranger | Blog: www.ExchangeRanger.Blogspot.com

1000 mailboxes server should be robust and you will get it in hardware not in virtual servers. I don't think this statement is neccessarily true. If you plan accordingly it should be fine with a virtual Exchange 2010 MBX role. I mean, why would Microsoft otherwise support it if there was some inherant weakness in virtualization? Make use of the Exchange 2010 Mailbox Server Role Requirements Calculator to get it right. ... and from an Exchange Server perspective; try to refrain from installing Exchange on a Domain Controller as this introduces some unneccessary challanges like restoration procedures.Jesper Bernle | Microsoft Community Contributor 2011 Awardee