«

If your just starting out, 2 machines should be fine. However down (293,
294) the road, 3 or 4 machines may be needed. But 2 is all you really need.

I've ran '03 Server on PIII 450 with 128 RAM no problem. Keep in mind this
is a test/lab environment. Your not supporting 2000 users, maybe 3-5, buy
most of the time 1.

For test prep lab, i'd go with 2 machines, 1 @256 (host) then the other make
it a server. run Virtual Server on it, then you can add/build multiple
machines as needed. Oh, adding extra nic's in the server for each additonal
virtual server, makes networking more realistic. You can capture packets
and run filters, etc, to force different configurations... fun fun fun.

-z

"Gary Singleton" <> wrote in message
news...
> Hey group(s), I am going to be setting up an in home lab to help me with
> the next few tests in the MCSA:Messaging track (70-290,70-291,70-284) and
> was wondering if there would be any advantage to setting up more than one
> server.
>
> I have basically four physical servers available but with mixing and
> matching of parts I can make either four single processor / 256MB RAM
> boxen; two dual processor / 512MB boxen; or one dual processor / 1G box.
> They're all only PIII 550s but as duals with 512M they run Server 2K3
> pretty well. Oh, they all have 50GB 10K RPM SCSI drives too if that
> matters.
>
> Now, the 1G option would probably be the fastest but two 512MB would
> probably be fine as well. I just don't know if there is a reason to have
> more than one server in a home lab. I could have one running AD and one
> dedicated to Exchange - that might be cool. I could also practice my
> Samba admin by setting up one box with AD and one box as a Samba member
> server - that might be cool too (no anti-Linux/BSD flames please).
>
> As far as clients go I think I can virtualize a couple of XP workstations
> on a fast desktop that I have available - it only has 512MB RAM but two
> 128MB virtual machines would probably be fine, three at most.
>
> So, just looking for advice or ideas here. Right now, I'm leaning towards
> two physical servers and two virtual clients.
>
> --
> Thanks, G.S.

It's good to have at least 1 physical box -- especially if you are
running Exchange which is a resource hog. One of the nice things about
VPCs for your other server(s) is the ability to create OS snapshots. So
for example, you could install Win 2k3 server and make a duplicate copy
of that image before you do any DCPromo-ing. The kits have you do a ton
of promoting and demoting, so it's nice to have a clean slate to work
with without having to do a full reinstall of Win2k3.

Zworkin wrote:
> If your just starting out, 2 machines should be fine. However down
(293,
> 294) the road, 3 or 4 machines may be needed. But 2 is all you
really need.
>
> I've ran '03 Server on PIII 450 with 128 RAM no problem. Keep in
mind this
> is a test/lab environment. Your not supporting 2000 users, maybe
3-5, buy
> most of the time 1.
>
> For test prep lab, i'd go with 2 machines, 1 @256 (host) then the
other make
> it a server. run Virtual Server on it, then you can add/build
multiple
> machines as needed. Oh, adding extra nic's in the server for each
additonal
> virtual server, makes networking more realistic. You can capture
packets
> and run filters, etc, to force different configurations... fun fun
fun.
>
> -z
>
> "Gary Singleton" <> wrote in message
> news...
> > Hey group(s), I am going to be setting up an in home lab to help me
with
> > the next few tests in the MCSA:Messaging track
(70-290,70-291,70-284) and
> > was wondering if there would be any advantage to setting up more
than one
> > server.
> >
> > I have basically four physical servers available but with mixing
and
> > matching of parts I can make either four single processor / 256MB
RAM
> > boxen; two dual processor / 512MB boxen; or one dual processor / 1G
box.
> > They're all only PIII 550s but as duals with 512M they run Server
2K3
> > pretty well. Oh, they all have 50GB 10K RPM SCSI drives too if
that
> > matters.
> >
> > Now, the 1G option would probably be the fastest but two 512MB
would
> > probably be fine as well. I just don't know if there is a reason
to have
> > more than one server in a home lab. I could have one running AD
and one
> > dedicated to Exchange - that might be cool. I could also practice
my
> > Samba admin by setting up one box with AD and one box as a Samba
member
> > server - that might be cool too (no anti-Linux/BSD flames please).
> >
> > As far as clients go I think I can virtualize a couple of XP
workstations
> > on a fast desktop that I have available - it only has 512MB RAM but
two
> > 128MB virtual machines would probably be fine, three at most.
> >
> > So, just looking for advice or ideas here. Right now, I'm leaning
towards
> > two physical servers and two virtual clients.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks, G.S.

Wandering away from the subject

Just curious about how you feel about Acronis. Is it any good?
Is it easy to use? Have you had any problems with it?

We are considering that product to replace our current
imaging software and I am looking for some other input.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lnkwizard2 MCNGP 2^5

http://www.mcngp.com
"He who does not test himself is worthless indeed"
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Gary Singleton" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:56:15 -0700, blastingfonda wrote:
>
> > It's good to have at least 1 physical box -- especially if you are
> > running Exchange which is a resource hog. One of the nice things about
> > VPCs for your other server(s) is the ability to create OS snapshots. So
> > for example, you could install Win 2k3 server and make a duplicate copy
> > of that image before you do any DCPromo-ing. The kits have you do a ton
> > of promoting and demoting, so it's nice to have a clean slate to work
> > with without having to do a full reinstall of Win2k3.
>
> Good point, I have Acronis True Image and was hoping to be able to do some
> imaging with it to kind of have snapshots on the physical box. I don't
> know if it'll work but I'll give it a shot.
>
> --message trimmed--
>
> --
> G.S.

"Gary Singleton" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:26:46 -0500, LnkWizard wrote:
>
> > Wandering away from the subject
> >
> > Just curious about how you feel about Acronis. Is it any good? Is it
> > easy to use? Have you had any problems with it?
> >
> > We are considering that product to replace our current imaging software
> > and I am looking for some other input.
>
> I've been very happy with True Image and in my opinion Acronis is hungry
> to gain market share and will do what they can to be successful. They've
> really impressed me as a beta tester and I've beta tested for just about
> all of the big companies over the years and a lot of smaller ones.
>
<snipped>

Thanks, I appreciate the information.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lnkwizard2 MCNGP 2^5

http://www.mcngp.com
"He who does not test himself is worthless indeed"
---------------------------------------------------------------------