Exchange 2007, Sharepoint Server Ent 2007 & SQL Server 2005 STD

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Right, I have in front of me a Dell 2900 with 2003 Std Server X64 & it has 8GB ram and dual quad core xeons

I also need to install Sharepoint Server 2007 Ent, SQL Server 2005 Standard and Exchange 2007

I've been trying to find online a guide as to which order to install these

I was thinking SQL, Sharepoint & then exchange, does that sound right?

Thanks

Andy

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Is this for test and development?

 

Hi Ryan, thanks for popping by

I think I know what your about to say....

This is our new office server to replace the little one thats on its last legs...

So no, it wont be a dev and test box

Andy

 

You are aware of the support implications of putting all of that one one box right? and the performance implications? ram or no ram, the disk i/o on that could cause issues

Personally your order of installation seems about right, although perhaps putting Exchange before sharepoint may have its benefits, Exchange 2007 does not rely on the IIS SMTP services etc, anymore so it might not be such an issue.

 

I know, all the eggs in one basket etc..

We are a small company, only six of us

only data to migrate is what's in our mailboxes and that can be done with a pst file

Reason I was wondering about the order of install is the integration of sharepoint and exchange, as im not based in the office, being able to access documents via internal links will be ideal.

We will have to see what its like performance wise, the server is packed with 146gb 15k SAS drives with both raid 1 and raid 10 arrays.

Thanks

Andy

 

I still personally feel you would be better off installing VMWare Server or Virtual Server onto the base OS and seperating those systems, that way you keep the hardware down, the only extra cost is some extra Os licenses and you maintain a supported infrasructure, the eggs in one basket thing wasnt so much what i was getting at, the lack of official support for that deployment is, if you ever have a problem with it you will find MS less helpful than usual

both VMware Server and MS Virtual Server are free but have paid support packages available, and will allow you to keep your applications supported and lower any risk involved with running them all on one OS

 

I agree with Phoenix. In the real world, those three wouldn't live on the same physical machine unless it was inside of VMWare or some similar application.

 

Seems a bit of overkill for just 6 users.

How about using the Sharepoint services that comes with Windows 2003 server instead of a full blown Sharepoint Server setup?
i.e. Win2K3 with Sharepoint services on it and then Exchange on top.

This way you also negate the need for SQL too as well as a Sharepoint and SQL server license's and CAL's (very expensive).

This was also my solution instead of IBM Lotus notes and Domino server for a company of 40 users but it got knocked back to just using Exchange Server.

Other than that you could have your base OS installed and then have all the servers installed separately in a virtual environment. I think (from memory) you can install up to 4 virtual servers with the same license (at least in Virtual PC, don't know about VMWare). It could be an option.

 

QFT and it's a supported configuration