All services on one server or split onto many virtual servers on one box

[mintra]

Hi

I am working with a client who wants to implement a sharepoint 2007 site.

The application is to serve 15 users total with 2 or 3 concurrent users, this is to support a contacts production system for the sales dept.

I have set up a physical server (vmware server on Red hat) with one virtual linux based email server to service the same 15 users. and had envisioned setting up everything on one virtual server for sharepoint 2007

The consultant they hired recommends that sharepoint be installed on several servers,

Web server

SQL server

Active directory server

index server.

Sharepoint 2007

I am sure that to split these up onto separate physical servers may impart some benifits. However if these were set up as separate virtual servers on the same physical server. does this give any benifits over all the same services on one windows server.

This same question could be asked of any number of microsoft product combinations, (terminal server etc)

I would have thought that Windows task switched within itself more efficiently than multiple windows servers on a vmware platform.

Any help welcomed

[asatoran]

Nearly all of my clients are small offices with less than 20 users/workstations. With such low usage, I saw very little need to setup multiple servers. Only one client has multiple servers but he has some quirky SQL needs from one of the vendors so we decided to add a 2nd SQL server on it's own VM.

But none of my clients have generated significant traffic to justify the complexity of splitting the services. The main reason some of my client's have separate servers is due to version incompatibilites. For example, one client has Exchange 2000 and doesn't want to pay for Exchange 2003 yet. So we left Exchange alone and just added a Win2k3 VM to get Sharepoint.

I don't see much benefit from a performace standpoint is splitting the services with so few users. But the isolation of the services could be valuable if you have to work with software from multiple vendors to reduce/eliminate software conflicts. But if your're basically just running just MS apps (Sharepoint, SQL, IIS) I'd leave it on one server. YMMV.

[msmenne17]

I would agree with asatoran's comments for the most part. What I would do though is build a seperate VM for Active Directory. AD is pretty critical to alot of things. Even for a small office, the isolation of AD and the hassles of having to restore it in an emergency are worth it.

If this is the only thing in SQL, then I don't see any need to seperate it out unless you want the additional seperation.

My opinion (YMMV).

[TomHowarth]

5 servers for 15 users!!!!! don't be silly,

Assumptions here

they already have a AD server,

perosnally I would do a single server install they are hardly going to generate the kind of traffic that an enterprise level installation would generate.

security point : - if the web server is externally facing that seperate this off.

thats my 2 pennies worth

[fontyyy]

We're seeing better performance (no figures, nothing like that, just a better user enviroment) running Sharepont 2007 on multiple VM's (MS VM's at that, boo hiss etc.) than I did running it all on one windows installation on the same physical server.

[TLKern]

Prepare yourself for growth now. Split these services into separate VMs even if they are to run on the same physical hardware at first. Then as any service grows to need more resources, you can neatly move that one VM to another server. A quick performance improvement that will satisfy the bosses and users and leave you with less headaches because you were prepared to do the split from the begining.