We've reached the end of the line for our Exchange 2003 server, and now wish to upgrade to Exchange 2010, but I'm having a tough time deciding the appropriate design. Can anyone make recommendations based on our existing/future architecture? Domain is Server 2008R2 native, 2 GC DCs. Exchange 2003 Standard sp2, 100 current mailbox users, 40 of them accessing through a separate Blackberry server as well. Hardware is Dell Poweredge 2850 1x single core Xeon 3GHz, 4GB ram, 3x73GB U320 in a RAID 5. memory usage averages at 2.2GB, processor peaks @ 100% once in a while, causing client issues occasionally. All roles for Exchange are run on this box currently, as well as OWA, GFI MailSecurity, GFI MailEssentials, and a filter for blocking mail based on country (XE filter). What I have available for the mailbox server is a PE2850 with dual 3.2GHz processors, 8GB, c: (OS) RAID1, 73GB, d: (DBs)RAID1, 146GB, e: (logs). RAID1, 73GB, all u320 10K rpm drives. Database size is currently 16GB, PFolders 500mb, transaction logs 139mb I also have space to create VMs on 2 ESXi5 host servers running on R710s. All mailboxes see light to moderate use. Based on out 100 mailboxes now we see anywhere between 20mb and 350mb incoming and the same for outgoing. Over the past 6 months, here are our stats based on 100 users: In (total) 8.25GB, total emails: 59384 (after SPAM filtering) Out(total) 6.44GB, total emails: 36123 We are looking to add 300 more mailboxes, all with very light usage, through our dedicated BES server only. So my question is, should I create all role on the one physical server? Or maybe use that as only the DB role and put the CAS/HT combination on a VM? Would it be a waste to use a Edge Transport server, or just stuff spam filtering on the CAS/HT box and size it adequately? And finally if I did do the simple migration to a single box, containing the DB/CAS/HT roles, how difficult would it be to extract the CAS/HT to a new server down the road? I'd like to do it right the first time, without over/under sizing the hardware or VMs. After the migration the current Exchange 2003 server will be retired, leaving it available for a future, less resource intensive role perhaps. Thank you!! B

Hi, I would prefer the MBX and CAS/HUB structure.Its based on your security requirement. For more reference: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb124701.aspxIts not difficult to introduce a new HUB but it is always difficult when introducing a new CAS because it can directly causing issues on the user end, such as certificate warning, credentials on the Outlook client. Therefore, please be cautious before installing any roles. Thanks, Simon

Hi, I would prefer the MBX and CAS/HUB structure.Its based on your security requirement. For more reference: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb124701.aspxIts not difficult to introduce a new HUB but it is always difficult when introducing a new CAS because it can directly causing issues on the user end, such as certificate warning, credentials on the Outlook client. Therefore, please be cautious before installing any roles. Thanks, Simon

Hi, I prefer to implement multi-role servers for many of the reason mentioned in the below Technet Article. Understanding Multiple Server Role Configurations in Capacity Planning http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd298121.aspxMartina Miskovic

Hi, I prefer to implement multi-role servers for many of the reason mentioned in the below Technet Article. Understanding Multiple Server Role Configurations in Capacity Planning http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd298121.aspxMartina Miskovic

any updates? If your question is answered it would be nice if you mark it accordingly. Thanks .Fiona Liao TechNet Community Support

any updates? If your question is answered it would be nice if you mark it accordingly. Thanks .Fiona Liao TechNet Community Support