Small client need advice

[modder man]

First i am not sure if i can post this here, If not I apologize.

I have a new client running a Dell Poweredge T110 with an Intel Celeron g530 and 16gb of ram with windows Server SBS 2011. The problem is that this server is handling way to many different functions and runs at %100 all the time.

this server is running these functions

• Primary domain Controller
• Exchange server 2010
• Pervasive SQL11
• Sequel Server 2008
• Symantec Antivirus
• Sage Peachtree
• Primary file Share
• Backup Server

I am not really sure where to start with the migration off of this machine. The problem is that at this point is is so loaded down that it is unusable from a management perspective. I would like to stand up a new server along side it and start to migrate things over perhaps starting with the DC functions. I have 2 HP dl160G7's (with dual L5640 and 32Gb ram each) that I would like to use to run their environment. The plan is to buy two licenses of server 2012 Standard. Would these two machines be adequate? Would there be a way I could basically P2V this and stand up this same machine is a hyper-V instance with more resources at least during the transition? They are running two other servers on premise. One is dedicated to running sage peachtree and the other is a proprietary app server that is extremely old. I would like to run everything they have on these two machines if possible. Looking for any suggestions or pointers of which direction to take this mess.

 

[TechIsCool]

So without more information I don't think anyone can give you a good idea of how it should work.

Questions.
Intentions to upgrade to Exchange 2013?
SQL 2008 what is running. Specific Application or a Given Workload.
Current Storage Layout and Size
What type of Uptime
Is there a Secondary DC
Is it Symantec Management or the Actual Anti Virus

My Guess right now is that the single machine is running with maybe a RAID 1 with HDD. More than likely you might be CPU but I would guess more likely its IO bound.

 

[modder man]

Questions

• no intention to upgrade exchange right now
• SQL 2008 not sure exactly what is running that is part of the problem, no one there can tell me why the machine has SQL on it and the machine is so loaded down eveything takes forever to investigate.
• current storage layout is 1 1tb spinning disk partitioned for C drive and Data drive. maybe 100gb on the drive total.
• uptime is just during the day, 8-5 office
• there is currently no secondary DC on site
  
• Symantec is the managment appliance running on the server'

As of right now I do not believe the disk bottleneck is the actual problem though like you said Im sure it is part of the problem. The machine is running at %100 cpu and ram 24/7.

 

[TechIsCool]

The new speced servers seem fine but If it was mine I would install SSDs in them 256GB SSD are cheap and are going to improve performance more than anything else. Just make sure to have good backups. The reason I asked about 2010 to 2013 is the way data is stored is totally different between them and there is a large performance difference. The way I would accomplish this is to p2p the host using clonezilla or another backup tool. Keeping the original host off and bring it up. With RAM being 100% consumed it is swapping to disk which is part of the problem.

 

[modder man]

agreed. I had planned to use ssds, most likely two ssds in a raid 1 per machine. So would you do a p2p two one of my new servers then start migrating services to the other, allowing the SBS 2011 to be completely decommissioned at some point in the future?

 

[modder man]

Does it make an sense to leave SBS 2011 in service just as a domain controller and to remove all other services? That piece of hardware is decent and I feel like could be used for something

 

[NetWise]

I see two issues, and I've had clients running similar horrible setups.

First is the Celeron CPU. If t was 'just a file server' that'd possibly be okay - but for SBS? Yikes.

The second is the '1 1tb disk' - so all of that is running on a single 80'ish IOPS disk?

Without more information it's hard to say. Is disk slow because CPU is pinned or is CPU slow because it can't get any data from the disk due to queuing?

But just speaking blindly I'd suggest upgrading the disks first. Depending on how full they are (who are we kidding they're an SMB who already shows they bought the absolute cheapest spec they could find and even then likely had to beg to get something so poorly spec'd - so it's a 98% capacity of course....) a pair of 1tb SSD in a mirror would make a world of difference for... Maybe $600-800?

And just about ANY CPU would improve that. That CPU probably isn't great in a netbook ;(. 2 cores and 2 threads with no hyper threading... Running multiple server processes? Not good.

I don't think you CAN separate the functions with an SBS licence without purchasing individual licences. As such as much as it is good to split your roles you may have to cope. The good thing is that with enough horsepower, SBS 'can' run well. It just has to be built knowing the entire team is sitting on the quarterback while he's running .

That T110 is about 5-6 years old now and literally the lowest end server Dell sells. It maxes out at 16gb and could be UPGRADED to an i3 first gen (530/540). It was doomed from the start....

Personally, I'd lifecycle the server. It did its job. If there isn't a budget to evergreen it...

 

[modder man]

Their storage capacity needs are actually very low...there is less than 100gb on that 1tb disk. All of their servers are that way. very little actual space used and huge slow spinning disks.

We are planning to purchase two 2012 Standard R2 liscenses. What would be my best best to split up the roles I have at hand between two physical machines? I have always been trained that a DC, SQL server, and Exchanger server never share with anything else. It looks like I will not have that option here so how does one make the best of a situation like this? My experience is more in enterprise that small business so the typical response is a little different. In the enterprise world you dont really make compromises like this, I just want to make the right decisions for them as they have been clearly abused for to long by the past place managing their infrastructure.

 

[Marsh]

This is a real question, because I never work with SBS 2011.

I always thought SBS is bundle and integrated together. You are not allow (legal) or able to split the roles.

 

[NetWise]

So let me caveat all this with "I do datacenters" and "I don't do a lot of single server small business stuff" (run screaming, when allowed). So I don't know everything I know here is 100% dead on - especially because licencing changes over versions, etc.

Absolutely, DC, SQL, Exchange should be separated. But SBS doesn't really work that way. That is a choice one makes by buying the cheaper bundle, vs the individual components. As such, it's more cost effective typically to buy a bigger more capable box, and run it as intended - for better or worse. One of the biggest issues I've seen over the years is people used to doing SME-Enterprise, who get into SBS and try to make it behave like Enterprise. It's built and optimized to be pretty good at what it does, for the fit and use case it's put towards. When you start trying to make it act like the 'bigger brother' versions, it understandably pushes back. Or the consultant doesn't understand that the SMB doesn't have $40,000 to throw at software.

You didn't indicate what version of SBS 2011 this is. There is Essentials - with a 25 user limit, Standard, and a Premium add-on. Premium adds SQL, so if this DOES have SQL, it is very likely Premium. Premium also deploying a second 2008 R2 Standard server, and some Hyper-V options on the network.

But I'm near certainly you cannot split up the roles, even if you buy separate 2012 R2 licenses. SBS 2011 Premium Add-on FAQ - TechNet Articles - United States (English) - TechNet Wiki

Q. How many servers may I use to run the SBS 2011 Premium Add-on server software?
A. You may run the SBS 2011 Premium Add-on server software only on one server.

Q. Can I separate the components of Windows Small Business Server 2011 Standard, (that is, run Exchange 2010 a separate servers)?
A. No, you may not separate the software for use on more than one operating system environment under a single license. The Exchange is integrated and cannot be separated.

Q. Does Windows SBS 2011 Premium Add-on require that I use two servers?
A. No. SBS 2011 Premium Add-on does not require that you use two servers. With the Premium Add-on, you are granted a Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard technologies license and a SQL Server 2008 R2 Standard for Small Business license, and you have the option of installing on a second server, but there is no requirement to do so.

Those are the FAQ's that seem relevant here. SQL can be migrated off, to Windows Server 2008 R2. Note that if you install Windows Server 2012 R2 and put client facing services on it, you're going to also require 2012R2 CAL's.

If the software is OEM, and tied to the hardware, I'd likely suggest the CPU upgrade and the pair of SSD's. That'll make the biggest difference. But you can't replace the hardware without replacing the software, and I don't think you can purchase SBS 2011 any longer.
If the software is retail, then migration to a single more capable SBS server makes the most sense, if you don't want to start getting involved with licencing hassles.

Unfortunately, there is no newer version of SBS. It's just Small Business Essentials, and the intention is you'd use Office 365 for Exchange, etc.

 

[NetWise]

My experience is more in enterprise that small business so the typical response is a little different. In the enterprise world you dont really make compromises like this, I just want to make the right decisions for them as they have been clearly abused for to long by the past place managing their infrastructure.

The biggest abuse is building a SBS server on a not even glorified desktop (I bet the desktops they had at the time were better, based on the specs here) and probably in buying OEM SBS. If they had bought a more capable physical box, and/or have Retail/VL SBS, then they are or can be made okay from here. If neither is true though... they've painted themselves into a corner with the previous place.

Based on my experience though - it's probably (possibly?) not the previous place's fault. I'd bet you lunch they told them over and over again the drawbacks, and the customer only saw $/month or $/user and didn't care about future, expand-ability, usability, and wanted the "lowest bidder price, no matter what". I'm in that situation with some clients at the new gig, and I'd love to fire the clients if we could, as no amount of experience, expertise, or knowledge is going to help them stop shooting their feet every day, and taking us with them....

But then again - I'm lousy at sales. And I'm not the boss.

 

[modder man]

So I guess I was misunderstanding how the server OS's /services work. Exchange/SQL are not a built in function of server 2012. They are built into sbs 2011 though? In that case I am really limited to and SBS type license correct? This business is a personal friend, so while he could be lying I really feel that their previous place just did not support them in the ways needed just threw some BS solution at them. So it sounds like at this point my two physical servers are really useless to them as the licensing alone would crush them as a small business.

 

[NetWise]

So I guess I was misunderstanding how the server OS's /services work. Exchange/SQL are not a built in function of server 2012. They are built into sbs 2011 though? In that case I am really limited to and SBS type license correct? This business is a personal friend, so while he could be lying I really feel that their previous place just did not support them in the ways needed just threw some BS solution at them. So it sounds like at this point my two physical servers are really useless to them as the licensing alone would crush them as a small business.

Been in this situation more than once, so I do feel your pain.

Yeah, Exchange and SQL are very very tightly integrated with SBS. Not only can you not remove them by way of licensing, but even if you did, there's a ton of stuff that just breaks. SBS is meant to be run by anyone vs experienced engineers, so if you try to 'take the wheel' you cause it grief. Automation starts to breaks, reports don't work, tie ins don't work. This was true with 2003 and 2008 at least, and I have to assume 2011 is also true. Remember, SBS is an "integrated suite" - not a bundle of components. It's using "versions" of Exchange, SQL, etc, but not the SAME versions we know and love in VL/EA worlds.

Integration isn't bad. You just have to build for it. More CPU and more disk IO would do WONDERS for this thing. If they don't need newer software, then just give them the hardware they should have had and go with that for a while. Right now it sounds like you can't even really work with or diagnose it to know where to go next. So if you can shake out the hardware performance a bit, you can at least collect that data and figure out if something newer makes sense.

 

[modder man]

From a cost perspective I don't think there are any newer options for software. SBS was the last OS that had small business software functionality like that. with server 2012 essentials they want you to go cloud based for exchange and sharepoint which is what the SQL instance here is. If cloud based is not an option I really need to just beef up this hardware as best and possible and go from there.

If I am working to add Disk IO to this machine how would you recommend doing that? consumer ssd or enterprise sas 10k? Also looks like i was wrong this machine currently has 2TB of data on it single 2TB spinning disk

 

[NetWise]

No, no good options. There's tons of posts out there about how gutted Partners felt when a very popular revenue stream went away. Many of our customers can't do cloud because even through our city (Edmonton, AB) has great internet, there are many 'black holes' in and around the city. Often the best option is a WiFi ISP which as bandwidth caps and can be intermittent - and just isn't great for cloud. Everyone always assumes people have these magical unlimited pipes..

Myself, I'd probably look at a pair of SSD's even consumer and go from there. They're not built for 24/7 operation for years, but this server is 5-6 years old anyways. So I think right now you're looking at the next 6-18 months and see if more comes. You didn't indicate how much data there is. If 1TB drives are too much and too risky all at once, then a couple of pairs of smaller disks and move the partitions about can help reduce the risks.

In that server though, it's almost certain to be software mirroring at best, if only native Windows stuff. THAT might be the bigger bear. Just about ANY internal RAID card would help you out there I'd bet, especially if it only had to do hardware mirroring and no RAID5.

 

[modder man]

I put the storage needs in the previous post there is almost 2Tb of data on that server. I dont know what all of it is because at this point that machine is to slow to navigate menus. I could potentially move alot of data to cheaper storage.

 

[NetWise]

2 TB is a little tougher to deal with easily. Depends on how much is Windows/Exchange/SQL and how much is just "file shares".

Probably mostly CPU related though at this point. Run the service tag and see if it's a T110 or a T110 II model. Both seem to show the option of a G530, but the II will support E3 xeon's that the non-II won't (or I can't find that information).

http://i.dell.com/sites/doccontent/...cuments/PowerEdge-T110-II-Technical-Guide.pdf

That says it'll take up to an E3-1280 v2, which gives you a ton of good performing options. It also says it can do 32GB, which would probably help a ton.

 

[modder man]

Yeah the plan is to put a e3-1230v2 in that box. That should make a huge difference. The SQL on there is only being used for sharepoint. We were really hoping to do some new hardware but MS ruined that for us. Can I virtualize the SBS box without violating the SBS license?

 

[coolrunnings82]

Lots of really good advise in this thread. As a side note, I've never been able to get 2011 running acceptably in any environment what-so-ever. It slaughters the storage system... 2012 R2 is a massive step up. I agree with those recommending SSD storage here. Just would recommend getting some stuff with decent write endurance and performance consistency if you're going to do anything with SQL on them let alone Exchange.

 

[NetWise]

Yeah the plan is to put a e3-1230v2 in that box. That should make a huge difference. The SQL on there is only being used for sharepoint. We were really hoping to do some new hardware but MS ruined that for us. Can I virtualize the SBS box without violating the SBS license?

Do you know if it is OEM or Retail license? OEM you can virtualize it, but your options I think are:
* Windows 2008 R2 to use the virutalization rights with the SBS product
* Windows 2012 R2 Hyper-V free version
* Windows 2012 R2 with Hyper-V if you buy Standard ( you can stack licenses on a box)
* VMware ESXi of whatever flavour, or any other virutalization.
The key is that the SBS licence must stay with the hardware, and the VOSE must as well. But you can put a layer in between if you wish.

If it's retail - you can largely do whatever you want with it. P2V it, move it around, etc. I *think*. You'd have significantly more options anyway.