|
|
Our Hot Pick: Rising Antivirus 2006 - Certified by TUV & Checkmark! Get 10% discount by entering this coupon code: ONDISCOUNT10
We are trying to set up SBS 2003 but with Exchange running on a different
server (Not the one that came with sbs but a new license!!!!!). My question
is this, Where is the best place to position our router ie. behind the SBS
machine or on the internal network so both servers have access to it??? If
behind the SBS machine then how do I route the relevant data to exchange via
the SBS? We have looked into the settings in ISA 2004 but isnt this just the
firewall?.... do we need to set up additional routing or can this not be
done. It seems like putting it on the internal network is easiest but then it
bypasses SBS security.
Any advice would be gratefully recieved,
Many thanks,
Scott
|
|
You do realize that you have to have Exchange CALs for this awell
If you can explain why you would do this, then we can probably give you
better advice
--
Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
------------------------------
Please do not contact me directly, only respond in the Newsgroups
MVPs do not work for Microsoft
------------------------------
Send via Windows Mail on Vista Ultimate connected to SBS 2003 R2
"Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C87314BD-2B35-4A98-BFCE-DB883F2B1ED6[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > We are trying to set up SBS 2003 but with Exchange running on a different
> server (Not the one that came with sbs but a new license!!!!!). My
> question
> is this, Where is the best place to position our router ie. behind the SBS
> machine or on the internal network so both servers have access to it??? If
> behind the SBS machine then how do I route the relevant data to exchange
> via
> the SBS? We have looked into the settings in ISA 2004 but isnt this just
> the
> firewall?.... do we need to set up additional routing or can this not be
> done. It seems like putting it on the internal network is easiest but then
> it
> bypasses SBS security.
>
> Any advice would be gratefully recieved,
> Many thanks,
>
> Scott
|
|
In article <BF22BC2C-13E0-4880-A13F-9FF0A15AFBDE[ at ]microsoft.com>,
crisnospamhanna[ at ]computingnospampossibilities.net says...
[Quoted Text] > You do realize that you have to have Exchange CALs for this awell
Cris: Yhis is not required if the SBS has an R2 license and we're
talking about Exchange 2003. According to
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/r2/default.mspx
"Reduced costs and increased flexibility through expanded client access
license (CAL) rights: SBS 2003 R2 entitles you to access additional
servers in your network (Microsoft Exchange Server 2003, Microsoft SQL
Server 2005 Workgroup, Microsoft Windows Server), saving you money and
offering you more flexibility in growth."
(But I agree we need to know why Scott wants a separate Exchange.)
-- Owen Williams (SBS MVP)
|
|
He didn't mention R2 so I didn't "assume"...lol
--
Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
------------------------------
Please do not contact me directly, only respond in the Newsgroups
MVPs do not work for Microsoft
------------------------------
Send via Windows Mail on Vista Ultimate connected to SBS 2003 R2
"Owen Williams [SBS MVP]" <Owen[ at ]NoSpam_CVTCLLC.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20feeb6639892ab2989a5c[ at ]news.microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > In article <BF22BC2C-13E0-4880-A13F-9FF0A15AFBDE[ at ]microsoft.com>, > crisnospamhanna[ at ]computingnospampossibilities.net says... > >> You do realize that you have to have Exchange CALs for this awell > > Cris: Yhis is not required if the SBS has an R2 license and we're > talking about Exchange 2003. According to > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/r2/default.mspx> > "Reduced costs and increased flexibility through expanded client access > license (CAL) rights: SBS 2003 R2 entitles you to access additional > servers in your network (Microsoft Exchange Server 2003, Microsoft SQL > Server 2005 Workgroup, Microsoft Windows Server), saving you money and > offering you more flexibility in growth." > > (But I agree we need to know why Scott wants a separate Exchange.) > > -- Owen Williams (SBS MVP)
|
|
Thanks for the quick response,
Yeah we are running SBS 2003 R2 premium and have purchased a seprate 2003
Server R2 & Exchange 2003 (both standard versions).
The reasons for hosting the exchange on a seprate host was to reduce load on
the SBS machine and allow Exchange store to eat up as much mem as it wants on
its own machine. We have also been running SBS 2000 upto date on our old
server and wanted to open exchange up to remote users but are paranoid about
security and access. (We hope these are justified or else we have wasted a
bit of money LOL!!!).
Granted, the new structure and features of SBS 2003 were unkown to us when
we made the descission but now we have seperate licenses and servers we would
like to use them if possible.
We have both systems installed and can administer exchange from SBS, we just
dont know how to pass the external request thorugh SBS to Exchange. That is
why we are wondering about positioning the router on the internal lan so data
can port forward directly to it. This obviously loses some of the security
gained from SBS and ISA.
Hope this clarifies things a little more,
Scott
"Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > You do realize that you have to have Exchange CALs for this awell
>
> If you can explain why you would do this, then we can probably give you
> better advice
>
> --
> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
> ------------------------------
> Please do not contact me directly, only respond in the Newsgroups
> MVPs do not work for Microsoft
> ------------------------------
> Send via Windows Mail on Vista Ultimate connected to SBS 2003 R2
> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C87314BD-2B35-4A98-BFCE-DB883F2B1ED6[ at ]microsoft.com...
> > We are trying to set up SBS 2003 but with Exchange running on a different
> > server (Not the one that came with sbs but a new license!!!!!). My
> > question
> > is this, Where is the best place to position our router ie. behind the SBS
> > machine or on the internal network so both servers have access to it??? If
> > behind the SBS machine then how do I route the relevant data to exchange
> > via
> > the SBS? We have looked into the settings in ISA 2004 but isnt this just
> > the
> > firewall?.... do we need to set up additional routing or can this not be
> > done. It seems like putting it on the internal network is easiest but then
> > it
> > bypasses SBS security.
> >
> > Any advice would be gratefully recieved,
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Scott
>
|
|
My personal opinion is that if you are running Premium and also running SQL,
which is can be a memory hog as well, then you should move that to the
separate server.
Exchange Server is really integrated with SBS and so basically you will shut
down the Exchange on SBS and Setup the new one and move mail boxes
You could have had everything regarding Exchange with it on SBS that you
have with having it on a separate server.. OWA or Outlook over HTTP
My opinion, a lot of money spent that probably wasn't necessary
Both SBS and new Exchange Server should be behind your router on the Lan
Connection side of the Router
You said you have Premium Ed. So are you running ISA as well?
--
Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
-------------------------------------------------
Microsoft MVPs
Independent Experts (MVPs do not work for MS)
Real World Answers
---------------------------------------------------------
Please do not contact me directly regarding issues
"Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AF993677-8E06-40E3-A60B-2D9ADDDDD0B2[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > Thanks for the quick response,
>
> Yeah we are running SBS 2003 R2 premium and have purchased a seprate 2003
> Server R2 & Exchange 2003 (both standard versions).
>
> The reasons for hosting the exchange on a seprate host was to reduce load
> on
> the SBS machine and allow Exchange store to eat up as much mem as it wants
> on
> its own machine. We have also been running SBS 2000 upto date on our old
> server and wanted to open exchange up to remote users but are paranoid
> about
> security and access. (We hope these are justified or else we have wasted a
> bit of money LOL!!!).
> Granted, the new structure and features of SBS 2003 were unkown to us when
> we made the descission but now we have seperate licenses and servers we
> would
> like to use them if possible.
> We have both systems installed and can administer exchange from SBS, we
> just
> dont know how to pass the external request thorugh SBS to Exchange. That
> is
> why we are wondering about positioning the router on the internal lan so
> data
> can port forward directly to it. This obviously loses some of the security
> gained from SBS and ISA.
>
> Hope this clarifies things a little more,
>
> Scott
>
>
> "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
>
>> You do realize that you have to have Exchange CALs for this awell
>>
>> If you can explain why you would do this, then we can probably give you
>> better advice
>>
>> --
>> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
>> ------------------------------
>> Please do not contact me directly, only respond in the Newsgroups
>> MVPs do not work for Microsoft
>> ------------------------------
>> Send via Windows Mail on Vista Ultimate connected to SBS 2003 R2
>> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C87314BD-2B35-4A98-BFCE-DB883F2B1ED6[ at ]microsoft.com...
>> > We are trying to set up SBS 2003 but with Exchange running on a
>> > different
>> > server (Not the one that came with sbs but a new license!!!!!). My
>> > question
>> > is this, Where is the best place to position our router ie. behind the
>> > SBS
>> > machine or on the internal network so both servers have access to it???
>> > If
>> > behind the SBS machine then how do I route the relevant data to
>> > exchange
>> > via
>> > the SBS? We have looked into the settings in ISA 2004 but isnt this
>> > just
>> > the
>> > firewall?.... do we need to set up additional routing or can this not
>> > be
>> > done. It seems like putting it on the internal network is easiest but
>> > then
>> > it
>> > bypasses SBS security.
>> >
>> > Any advice would be gratefully recieved,
>> > Many thanks,
>> >
>> > Scott
>>
|
|
Yes we will be, We are just doing test builds at the moment to see the best
way of configuing the system. If we were running exchange seperatly how would
we pass the incoming traffic through SBS to the seperate exchange server. Or
are you recomending that both servers are connected to the router and we
route the exchange traffic directly to it?
Scott
"Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > My personal opinion is that if you are running Premium and also running SQL,
> which is can be a memory hog as well, then you should move that to the
> separate server.
>
> Exchange Server is really integrated with SBS and so basically you will shut
> down the Exchange on SBS and Setup the new one and move mail boxes
> You could have had everything regarding Exchange with it on SBS that you
> have with having it on a separate server.. OWA or Outlook over HTTP
> My opinion, a lot of money spent that probably wasn't necessary
>
> Both SBS and new Exchange Server should be behind your router on the Lan
> Connection side of the Router
>
> You said you have Premium Ed. So are you running ISA as well?
>
> --
> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
> -------------------------------------------------
> Microsoft MVPs
> Independent Experts (MVPs do not work for MS)
> Real World Answers
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Please do not contact me directly regarding issues
>
> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AF993677-8E06-40E3-A60B-2D9ADDDDD0B2[ at ]microsoft.com...
> > Thanks for the quick response,
> >
> > Yeah we are running SBS 2003 R2 premium and have purchased a seprate 2003
> > Server R2 & Exchange 2003 (both standard versions).
> >
> > The reasons for hosting the exchange on a seprate host was to reduce load
> > on
> > the SBS machine and allow Exchange store to eat up as much mem as it wants
> > on
> > its own machine. We have also been running SBS 2000 upto date on our old
> > server and wanted to open exchange up to remote users but are paranoid
> > about
> > security and access. (We hope these are justified or else we have wasted a
> > bit of money LOL!!!).
> > Granted, the new structure and features of SBS 2003 were unkown to us when
> > we made the descission but now we have seperate licenses and servers we
> > would
> > like to use them if possible.
> > We have both systems installed and can administer exchange from SBS, we
> > just
> > dont know how to pass the external request thorugh SBS to Exchange. That
> > is
> > why we are wondering about positioning the router on the internal lan so
> > data
> > can port forward directly to it. This obviously loses some of the security
> > gained from SBS and ISA.
> >
> > Hope this clarifies things a little more,
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >> You do realize that you have to have Exchange CALs for this awell
> >>
> >> If you can explain why you would do this, then we can probably give you
> >> better advice
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
> >> ------------------------------
> >> Please do not contact me directly, only respond in the Newsgroups
> >> MVPs do not work for Microsoft
> >> ------------------------------
> >> Send via Windows Mail on Vista Ultimate connected to SBS 2003 R2
> >> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:C87314BD-2B35-4A98-BFCE-DB883F2B1ED6[ at ]microsoft.com...
> >> > We are trying to set up SBS 2003 but with Exchange running on a
> >> > different
> >> > server (Not the one that came with sbs but a new license!!!!!). My
> >> > question
> >> > is this, Where is the best place to position our router ie. behind the
> >> > SBS
> >> > machine or on the internal network so both servers have access to it???
> >> > If
> >> > behind the SBS machine then how do I route the relevant data to
> >> > exchange
> >> > via
> >> > the SBS? We have looked into the settings in ISA 2004 but isnt this
> >> > just
> >> > the
> >> > firewall?.... do we need to set up additional routing or can this not
> >> > be
> >> > done. It seems like putting it on the internal network is easiest but
> >> > then
> >> > it
> >> > bypasses SBS security.
> >> >
> >> > Any advice would be gratefully recieved,
> >> > Many thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Scott
> >>
>
>
>
|
|
Deadthing wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Yes we will be, We are just doing test builds at the moment to see
> the best way of configuing the system. If we were running exchange
> seperatly how would we pass the incoming traffic through SBS to the
> seperate exchange server. Or are you recomending that both servers
> are connected to the router and we route the exchange traffic
> directly to it?
>
> Scott
The easiest way is to keep Exchange on the SBS server and just install
Exchange as a second server. Move all the user mailboxes to the second
server and route incoming mail to the second server. Exchange will route
anything needed between the two Exchange servers and the "workload" will be
on the second server. This method also allows you to leave the offline
address book, recepient update services, and a host of other light load
componets on SBS where it's expected to be found. ( It also allows some
wizard functionality to continue without 'issues' ).
>
> "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
>
>> My personal opinion is that if you are running Premium and also
>> running SQL, which is can be a memory hog as well, then you should
>> move that to the separate server.
>>
>> Exchange Server is really integrated with SBS and so basically you
>> will shut down the Exchange on SBS and Setup the new one and move
>> mail boxes
>> You could have had everything regarding Exchange with it on SBS that
>> you have with having it on a separate server.. OWA or Outlook over
>> HTTP
>> My opinion, a lot of money spent that probably wasn't necessary
>>
>> Both SBS and new Exchange Server should be behind your router on the
>> Lan Connection side of the Router
>>
>> You said you have Premium Ed. So are you running ISA as well?
>>
>> --
>> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> Microsoft MVPs
>> Independent Experts (MVPs do not work for MS)
>> Real World Answers
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Please do not contact me directly regarding issues
>>
>> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:AF993677-8E06-40E3-A60B-2D9ADDDDD0B2[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>> Thanks for the quick response,
>>>
>>> Yeah we are running SBS 2003 R2 premium and have purchased a
>>> seprate 2003 Server R2 & Exchange 2003 (both standard versions).
>>>
>>> The reasons for hosting the exchange on a seprate host was to
>>> reduce load on
>>> the SBS machine and allow Exchange store to eat up as much mem as
>>> it wants on
>>> its own machine. We have also been running SBS 2000 upto date on
>>> our old server and wanted to open exchange up to remote users but
>>> are paranoid about
>>> security and access. (We hope these are justified or else we have
>>> wasted a bit of money LOL!!!).
>>> Granted, the new structure and features of SBS 2003 were unkown to
>>> us when we made the descission but now we have seperate licenses
>>> and servers we would
>>> like to use them if possible.
>>> We have both systems installed and can administer exchange from
>>> SBS, we just
>>> dont know how to pass the external request thorugh SBS to Exchange.
>>> That is
>>> why we are wondering about positioning the router on the internal
>>> lan so data
>>> can port forward directly to it. This obviously loses some of the
>>> security gained from SBS and ISA.
>>>
>>> Hope this clarifies things a little more,
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
>>>
>>>> You do realize that you have to have Exchange CALs for this awell
>>>>
>>>> If you can explain why you would do this, then we can probably
>>>> give you better advice
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Please do not contact me directly, only respond in the Newsgroups
>>>> MVPs do not work for Microsoft
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Send via Windows Mail on Vista Ultimate connected to SBS 2003 R2
>>>> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:C87314BD-2B35-4A98-BFCE-DB883F2B1ED6[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>>>> We are trying to set up SBS 2003 but with Exchange running on a
>>>>> different
>>>>> server (Not the one that came with sbs but a new license!!!!!). My
>>>>> question
>>>>> is this, Where is the best place to position our router ie.
>>>>> behind the SBS
>>>>> machine or on the internal network so both servers have access to
>>>>> it??? If
>>>>> behind the SBS machine then how do I route the relevant data to
>>>>> exchange
>>>>> via
>>>>> the SBS? We have looked into the settings in ISA 2004 but isnt
>>>>> this just
>>>>> the
>>>>> firewall?.... do we need to set up additional routing or can this
>>>>> not be
>>>>> done. It seems like putting it on the internal network is easiest
>>>>> but then
>>>>> it
>>>>> bypasses SBS security.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any advice would be gratefully recieved,
>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
--
/kj
|
|
not having done this...does the SBS simply pass OWA to the second server?
--
Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
-------------------------------------------------
Microsoft MVPs
Independent Experts (MVPs do not work for MS)
Real World Answers
---------------------------------------------------------
Please do not contact me directly regarding issues
"kj [SBS MVP]" <KevinJ.SBS[ at ]SPAMFREE.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uQJLKWMxHHA.736[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Deadthing wrote:
>> Yes we will be, We are just doing test builds at the moment to see
>> the best way of configuing the system. If we were running exchange
>> seperatly how would we pass the incoming traffic through SBS to the
>> seperate exchange server. Or are you recomending that both servers
>> are connected to the router and we route the exchange traffic
>> directly to it?
>>
>> Scott
>
> The easiest way is to keep Exchange on the SBS server and just install
> Exchange as a second server. Move all the user mailboxes to the second
> server and route incoming mail to the second server. Exchange will route
> anything needed between the two Exchange servers and the "workload" will
> be on the second server. This method also allows you to leave the offline
> address book, recepient update services, and a host of other light load
> componets on SBS where it's expected to be found. ( It also allows some
> wizard functionality to continue without 'issues' ).
>
>
>>
>> "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
>>
>>> My personal opinion is that if you are running Premium and also
>>> running SQL, which is can be a memory hog as well, then you should
>>> move that to the separate server.
>>>
>>> Exchange Server is really integrated with SBS and so basically you
>>> will shut down the Exchange on SBS and Setup the new one and move
>>> mail boxes
>>> You could have had everything regarding Exchange with it on SBS that
>>> you have with having it on a separate server.. OWA or Outlook over
>>> HTTP
>>> My opinion, a lot of money spent that probably wasn't necessary
>>>
>>> Both SBS and new Exchange Server should be behind your router on the
>>> Lan Connection side of the Router
>>>
>>> You said you have Premium Ed. So are you running ISA as well?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>> Microsoft MVPs
>>> Independent Experts (MVPs do not work for MS)
>>> Real World Answers
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>> Please do not contact me directly regarding issues
>>>
>>> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:AF993677-8E06-40E3-A60B-2D9ADDDDD0B2[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>>> Thanks for the quick response,
>>>>
>>>> Yeah we are running SBS 2003 R2 premium and have purchased a
>>>> seprate 2003 Server R2 & Exchange 2003 (both standard versions).
>>>>
>>>> The reasons for hosting the exchange on a seprate host was to
>>>> reduce load on
>>>> the SBS machine and allow Exchange store to eat up as much mem as
>>>> it wants on
>>>> its own machine. We have also been running SBS 2000 upto date on
>>>> our old server and wanted to open exchange up to remote users but
>>>> are paranoid about
>>>> security and access. (We hope these are justified or else we have
>>>> wasted a bit of money LOL!!!).
>>>> Granted, the new structure and features of SBS 2003 were unkown to
>>>> us when we made the descission but now we have seperate licenses
>>>> and servers we would
>>>> like to use them if possible.
>>>> We have both systems installed and can administer exchange from
>>>> SBS, we just
>>>> dont know how to pass the external request thorugh SBS to Exchange.
>>>> That is
>>>> why we are wondering about positioning the router on the internal
>>>> lan so data
>>>> can port forward directly to it. This obviously loses some of the
>>>> security gained from SBS and ISA.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this clarifies things a little more,
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You do realize that you have to have Exchange CALs for this awell
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can explain why you would do this, then we can probably
>>>>> give you better advice
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Please do not contact me directly, only respond in the Newsgroups
>>>>> MVPs do not work for Microsoft
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Send via Windows Mail on Vista Ultimate connected to SBS 2003 R2
>>>>> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:C87314BD-2B35-4A98-BFCE-DB883F2B1ED6[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>>>>> We are trying to set up SBS 2003 but with Exchange running on a
>>>>>> different
>>>>>> server (Not the one that came with sbs but a new license!!!!!). My
>>>>>> question
>>>>>> is this, Where is the best place to position our router ie.
>>>>>> behind the SBS
>>>>>> machine or on the internal network so both servers have access to
>>>>>> it??? If
>>>>>> behind the SBS machine then how do I route the relevant data to
>>>>>> exchange
>>>>>> via
>>>>>> the SBS? We have looked into the settings in ISA 2004 but isnt
>>>>>> this just
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> firewall?.... do we need to set up additional routing or can this
>>>>>> not be
>>>>>> done. It seems like putting it on the internal network is easiest
>>>>>> but then
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> bypasses SBS security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any advice would be gratefully recieved,
>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott
>
> --
> /kj
>
|
|
Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP] wrote:
[Quoted Text] > not having done this...does the SBS simply pass OWA to the second
> server?
You know Cris, I think it does. I've got a couple like this and 443 is
forwarded to the SBS server. Both http/rpc and OWA seem to work fine. I
suspect they wouldn't if the SBS server or services were down. Looks like
something for me to investigate!
>
> "kj [SBS MVP]" <KevinJ.SBS[ at ]SPAMFREE.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uQJLKWMxHHA.736[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Deadthing wrote:
>>> Yes we will be, We are just doing test builds at the moment to see
>>> the best way of configuing the system. If we were running exchange
>>> seperatly how would we pass the incoming traffic through SBS to the
>>> seperate exchange server. Or are you recomending that both servers
>>> are connected to the router and we route the exchange traffic
>>> directly to it?
>>>
>>> Scott
>>
>> The easiest way is to keep Exchange on the SBS server and just
>> install Exchange as a second server. Move all the user mailboxes to
>> the second server and route incoming mail to the second server.
>> Exchange will route anything needed between the two Exchange servers
>> and the "workload" will be on the second server. This method also
>> allows you to leave the offline address book, recepient update
>> services, and a host of other light load componets on SBS where it's
>> expected to be found. ( It also allows some wizard functionality to
>> continue without 'issues' ).
>>>
>>> "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
>>>
>>>> My personal opinion is that if you are running Premium and also
>>>> running SQL, which is can be a memory hog as well, then you should
>>>> move that to the separate server.
>>>>
>>>> Exchange Server is really integrated with SBS and so basically you
>>>> will shut down the Exchange on SBS and Setup the new one and move
>>>> mail boxes
>>>> You could have had everything regarding Exchange with it on SBS
>>>> that you have with having it on a separate server.. OWA or
>>>> Outlook over HTTP
>>>> My opinion, a lot of money spent that probably wasn't necessary
>>>>
>>>> Both SBS and new Exchange Server should be behind your router on
>>>> the Lan Connection side of the Router
>>>>
>>>> You said you have Premium Ed. So are you running ISA as well?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
>>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>>> Microsoft MVPs
>>>> Independent Experts (MVPs do not work for MS)
>>>> Real World Answers
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Please do not contact me directly regarding issues
>>>>
>>>> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:AF993677-8E06-40E3-A60B-2D9ADDDDD0B2[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>>>> Thanks for the quick response,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah we are running SBS 2003 R2 premium and have purchased a
>>>>> seprate 2003 Server R2 & Exchange 2003 (both standard versions).
>>>>>
>>>>> The reasons for hosting the exchange on a seprate host was to
>>>>> reduce load on
>>>>> the SBS machine and allow Exchange store to eat up as much mem as
>>>>> it wants on
>>>>> its own machine. We have also been running SBS 2000 upto date on
>>>>> our old server and wanted to open exchange up to remote users but
>>>>> are paranoid about
>>>>> security and access. (We hope these are justified or else we have
>>>>> wasted a bit of money LOL!!!).
>>>>> Granted, the new structure and features of SBS 2003 were unkown to
>>>>> us when we made the descission but now we have seperate licenses
>>>>> and servers we would
>>>>> like to use them if possible.
>>>>> We have both systems installed and can administer exchange from
>>>>> SBS, we just
>>>>> dont know how to pass the external request thorugh SBS to
>>>>> Exchange. That is
>>>>> why we are wondering about positioning the router on the internal
>>>>> lan so data
>>>>> can port forward directly to it. This obviously loses some of the
>>>>> security gained from SBS and ISA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope this clarifies things a little more,
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You do realize that you have to have Exchange CALs for this awell
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can explain why you would do this, then we can probably
>>>>>> give you better advice
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> Please do not contact me directly, only respond in the Newsgroups
>>>>>> MVPs do not work for Microsoft
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> Send via Windows Mail on Vista Ultimate connected to SBS 2003 R2
>>>>>> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>> news:C87314BD-2B35-4A98-BFCE-DB883F2B1ED6[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>>>>>> We are trying to set up SBS 2003 but with Exchange running on a
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> server (Not the one that came with sbs but a new license!!!!!).
>>>>>>> My question
>>>>>>> is this, Where is the best place to position our router ie.
>>>>>>> behind the SBS
>>>>>>> machine or on the internal network so both servers have access
>>>>>>> to it??? If
>>>>>>> behind the SBS machine then how do I route the relevant data to
>>>>>>> exchange
>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>> the SBS? We have looked into the settings in ISA 2004 but isnt
>>>>>>> this just
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> firewall?.... do we need to set up additional routing or can
>>>>>>> this not be
>>>>>>> done. It seems like putting it on the internal network is
>>>>>>> easiest but then
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> bypasses SBS security.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any advice would be gratefully recieved,
>>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott
>>
>> --
>> /kj
--
/kj
|
|
Thanks, this sounds like it could be an ideal solution for us.
KJ, on you first mail you mentioned "Move all the user mailboxes to the
second server and route incoming mail to the second server". How do I route
the mail to the second server? Is this a port forwarding route or just a
setting in SBS to tell it to use the second server.
Also are there any points I need to note or anything special that needs
doing when building a second exchange server? I am hoping it is a straight
forward process.
Thanks, Scott
"kj [SBS MVP]" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP] wrote:
> > not having done this...does the SBS simply pass OWA to the second
> > server?
>
> You know Cris, I think it does. I've got a couple like this and 443 is
> forwarded to the SBS server. Both http/rpc and OWA seem to work fine. I
> suspect they wouldn't if the SBS server or services were down. Looks like
> something for me to investigate!
>
> >
>
> > "kj [SBS MVP]" <KevinJ.SBS[ at ]SPAMFREE.gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:uQJLKWMxHHA.736[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> Deadthing wrote:
> >>> Yes we will be, We are just doing test builds at the moment to see
> >>> the best way of configuing the system. If we were running exchange
> >>> seperatly how would we pass the incoming traffic through SBS to the
> >>> seperate exchange server. Or are you recomending that both servers
> >>> are connected to the router and we route the exchange traffic
> >>> directly to it?
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>
> >> The easiest way is to keep Exchange on the SBS server and just
> >> install Exchange as a second server. Move all the user mailboxes to
> >> the second server and route incoming mail to the second server.
> >> Exchange will route anything needed between the two Exchange servers
> >> and the "workload" will be on the second server. This method also
> >> allows you to leave the offline address book, recepient update
> >> services, and a host of other light load componets on SBS where it's
> >> expected to be found. ( It also allows some wizard functionality to
> >> continue without 'issues' ).
> >>>
> >>> "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> My personal opinion is that if you are running Premium and also
> >>>> running SQL, which is can be a memory hog as well, then you should
> >>>> move that to the separate server.
> >>>>
> >>>> Exchange Server is really integrated with SBS and so basically you
> >>>> will shut down the Exchange on SBS and Setup the new one and move
> >>>> mail boxes
> >>>> You could have had everything regarding Exchange with it on SBS
> >>>> that you have with having it on a separate server.. OWA or
> >>>> Outlook over HTTP
> >>>> My opinion, a lot of money spent that probably wasn't necessary
> >>>>
> >>>> Both SBS and new Exchange Server should be behind your router on
> >>>> the Lan Connection side of the Router
> >>>>
> >>>> You said you have Premium Ed. So are you running ISA as well?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------
> >>>> Microsoft MVPs
> >>>> Independent Experts (MVPs do not work for MS)
> >>>> Real World Answers
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> Please do not contact me directly regarding issues
> >>>>
> >>>> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:AF993677-8E06-40E3-A60B-2D9ADDDDD0B2[ at ]microsoft.com...
> >>>>> Thanks for the quick response,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah we are running SBS 2003 R2 premium and have purchased a
> >>>>> seprate 2003 Server R2 & Exchange 2003 (both standard versions).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The reasons for hosting the exchange on a seprate host was to
> >>>>> reduce load on
> >>>>> the SBS machine and allow Exchange store to eat up as much mem as
> >>>>> it wants on
> >>>>> its own machine. We have also been running SBS 2000 upto date on
> >>>>> our old server and wanted to open exchange up to remote users but
> >>>>> are paranoid about
> >>>>> security and access. (We hope these are justified or else we have
> >>>>> wasted a bit of money LOL!!!).
> >>>>> Granted, the new structure and features of SBS 2003 were unkown to
> >>>>> us when we made the descission but now we have seperate licenses
> >>>>> and servers we would
> >>>>> like to use them if possible.
> >>>>> We have both systems installed and can administer exchange from
> >>>>> SBS, we just
> >>>>> dont know how to pass the external request thorugh SBS to
> >>>>> Exchange. That is
> >>>>> why we are wondering about positioning the router on the internal
> >>>>> lan so data
> >>>>> can port forward directly to it. This obviously loses some of the
> >>>>> security gained from SBS and ISA.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hope this clarifies things a little more,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Scott
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> You do realize that you have to have Exchange CALs for this awell
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you can explain why you would do this, then we can probably
> >>>>>> give you better advice
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
> >>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>> Please do not contact me directly, only respond in the Newsgroups
> >>>>>> MVPs do not work for Microsoft
> >>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>> Send via Windows Mail on Vista Ultimate connected to SBS 2003 R2
> >>>>>> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>> news:C87314BD-2B35-4A98-BFCE-DB883F2B1ED6[ at ]microsoft.com...
> >>>>>>> We are trying to set up SBS 2003 but with Exchange running on a
> >>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>> server (Not the one that came with sbs but a new license!!!!!).
> >>>>>>> My question
> >>>>>>> is this, Where is the best place to position our router ie.
> >>>>>>> behind the SBS
> >>>>>>> machine or on the internal network so both servers have access
> >>>>>>> to it??? If
> >>>>>>> behind the SBS machine then how do I route the relevant data to
> >>>>>>> exchange
> >>>>>>> via
> >>>>>>> the SBS? We have looked into the settings in ISA 2004 but isnt
> >>>>>>> this just
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> firewall?.... do we need to set up additional routing or can
> >>>>>>> this not be
> >>>>>>> done. It seems like putting it on the internal network is
> >>>>>>> easiest but then
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> bypasses SBS security.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Any advice would be gratefully recieved,
> >>>>>>> Many thanks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Scott
> >>
> >> --
> >> /kj
>
> --
> /kj
>
>
>
|
|
Deadthing wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Thanks, this sounds like it could be an ideal solution for us.
> KJ, on you first mail you mentioned "Move all the user mailboxes to
> the second server and route incoming mail to the second server". How
> do I route the mail to the second server? Is this a port forwarding
> route or just a setting in SBS to tell it to use the second server.
> Also are there any points I need to note or anything special that
> needs doing when building a second exchange server? I am hoping it is
> a straight forward process.
>
> Thanks, Scott
All you need do ( and you don't even *have* to do this ) is port forward
your incoming SMTP (25) to the second server. Exchange knows about the
second server and how to ( & when to ) route messages to appropriate server
information store.
Forwarding incoming SMTP to the second server takes that load off the SBS
server.
>
>
>
> "kj [SBS MVP]" wrote:
>
>> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP] wrote:
>>> not having done this...does the SBS simply pass OWA to the second
>>> server?
>>
>> You know Cris, I think it does. I've got a couple like this and 443
>> is forwarded to the SBS server. Both http/rpc and OWA seem to work
>> fine. I suspect they wouldn't if the SBS server or services were
>> down. Looks like something for me to investigate!
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "kj [SBS MVP]" <KevinJ.SBS[ at ]SPAMFREE.gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uQJLKWMxHHA.736[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Deadthing wrote:
>>>>> Yes we will be, We are just doing test builds at the moment to see
>>>>> the best way of configuing the system. If we were running exchange
>>>>> seperatly how would we pass the incoming traffic through SBS to
>>>>> the seperate exchange server. Or are you recomending that both
>>>>> servers are connected to the router and we route the exchange
>>>>> traffic directly to it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> The easiest way is to keep Exchange on the SBS server and just
>>>> install Exchange as a second server. Move all the user mailboxes to
>>>> the second server and route incoming mail to the second server.
>>>> Exchange will route anything needed between the two Exchange
>>>> servers and the "workload" will be on the second server. This
>>>> method also allows you to leave the offline address book,
>>>> recepient update services, and a host of other light load
>>>> componets on SBS where it's expected to be found. ( It also allows
>>>> some wizard functionality to continue without 'issues' ).
>>>>>
>>>>> "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My personal opinion is that if you are running Premium and also
>>>>>> running SQL, which is can be a memory hog as well, then you
>>>>>> should move that to the separate server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exchange Server is really integrated with SBS and so basically
>>>>>> you will shut down the Exchange on SBS and Setup the new one and
>>>>>> move mail boxes
>>>>>> You could have had everything regarding Exchange with it on SBS
>>>>>> that you have with having it on a separate server.. OWA or
>>>>>> Outlook over HTTP
>>>>>> My opinion, a lot of money spent that probably wasn't necessary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both SBS and new Exchange Server should be behind your router on
>>>>>> the Lan Connection side of the Router
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said you have Premium Ed. So are you running ISA as well?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Microsoft MVPs
>>>>>> Independent Experts (MVPs do not work for MS)
>>>>>> Real World Answers
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Please do not contact me directly regarding issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>> news:AF993677-8E06-40E3-A60B-2D9ADDDDD0B2[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>>>>>> Thanks for the quick response,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah we are running SBS 2003 R2 premium and have purchased a
>>>>>>> seprate 2003 Server R2 & Exchange 2003 (both standard versions).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reasons for hosting the exchange on a seprate host was to
>>>>>>> reduce load on
>>>>>>> the SBS machine and allow Exchange store to eat up as much mem
>>>>>>> as it wants on
>>>>>>> its own machine. We have also been running SBS 2000 upto date on
>>>>>>> our old server and wanted to open exchange up to remote users
>>>>>>> but are paranoid about
>>>>>>> security and access. (We hope these are justified or else we
>>>>>>> have wasted a bit of money LOL!!!).
>>>>>>> Granted, the new structure and features of SBS 2003 were unkown
>>>>>>> to us when we made the descission but now we have seperate
>>>>>>> licenses and servers we would
>>>>>>> like to use them if possible.
>>>>>>> We have both systems installed and can administer exchange from
>>>>>>> SBS, we just
>>>>>>> dont know how to pass the external request thorugh SBS to
>>>>>>> Exchange. That is
>>>>>>> why we are wondering about positioning the router on the
>>>>>>> internal lan so data
>>>>>>> can port forward directly to it. This obviously loses some of
>>>>>>> the security gained from SBS and ISA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hope this clarifies things a little more,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do realize that you have to have Exchange CALs for this
>>>>>>>> awell
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can explain why you would do this, then we can probably
>>>>>>>> give you better advice
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Please do not contact me directly, only respond in the
>>>>>>>> Newsgroups MVPs do not work for Microsoft
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Send via Windows Mail on Vista Ultimate connected to SBS 2003
>>>>>>>> R2 "Deadthing" <Deadthing[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>> news:C87314BD-2B35-4A98-BFCE-DB883F2B1ED6[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>> We are trying to set up SBS 2003 but with Exchange running on
>>>>>>>>> a different
>>>>>>>>> server (Not the one that came with sbs but a new
>>>>>>>>> license!!!!!). My question
>>>>>>>>> is this, Where is the best place to position our router ie.
>>>>>>>>> behind the SBS
>>>>>>>>> machine or on the internal network so both servers have access
>>>>>>>>> to it??? If
>>>>>>>>> behind the SBS machine then how do I route the relevant data
>>>>>>>>> to exchange
>>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>>> the SBS? We have looked into the settings in ISA 2004 but isnt
>>>>>>>>> this just
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> firewall?.... do we need to set up additional routing or can
>>>>>>>>> this not be
>>>>>>>>> done. It seems like putting it on the internal network is
>>>>>>>>> easiest but then
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> bypasses SBS security.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any advice would be gratefully recieved,
>>>>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> /kj
>>
>> --
>> /kj
--
/kj
|
|
|