Help me sort out my servers

[LuckyTaxi]

Ok...We're getting ready to redesign our network at this private school, and would like some input as to how
we can make our setup better. I'm going to list the servers we plan to implement along with their duties.
Some of the things listed are required by administration, so we're stuck supporting them for now.

2 - Novell 5.1 server running Sybase (sooner or later we're going to merge the two trees)
2 - Windows 2k (PDC & BDC)
1 - Redhat (webserver & database server - putting the two together because the helpdesk software requires mySQL)
1 - FreeBSD (email server)
1 - Redhat or BSD (file server)
1 - Internal DNS for Window's Active Directory (I dont remember, but isn't DNS required on the PDC itself? If not, then we may
install DNS on a *NIX base system)
1 - Win2k (Running Citrix XP & IIS) <-- Administration is runnnig some accounting program that requires IIS! We didn't want this,
but the software package they bought only runs on IIS. Good thing is it's only required internally. Lock down this badboy!
1 - Win2k (running MS' SQL server <-- is the backend to the software package they bought)

That's a total of 10 servers. Are there any advice as to how we can cut down on the number of servers? I tried grouping different
applications together such as the webserver and database server, but with the applications that will be implemented, I doubt I would
want to gruop anything together!

As you can see, we want to utilize Linux/BSD as much as we could. We're implementing 25 thin clients in the library because the building
is too far from our office. Besides, central administration for those PCs will be much easier than having to walk over there.

 

[Gantry]

I would say group all the Linux/BSD machines into one server for now, it can easily handle the multiple services. And if the machine becomes overloaded at a later date, bring in another server to separate loads...

 

[SaigonK]

I agree on the BSd opinion, it can easily handle your web and email and file serving needs.
Novell 5.1 and Sybase? Good luck! Frankly Sybase sucks bigtime, go to Oracle instead! If you are thinking of doing a Novell Network then think about Novell 6 also, it offers tons of new features.

 

[freebsddude]

I dont know enough about Novell, but typically you want your databases as far away from the internet as possible, I know Sybase will work on Linux. Why not combine Sybase and mySQL on one box (Linux ?).

What do the Novell machines support ? What networks, protocols ? The fewer protocols, the better from a
uniformity and maintenance perspective, but there must be a good reason for all this.

Maybe put the webserver email server together and the databases on Redhat behind some firewall, etc.

 

[LuckyTaxi]

<< I dont know enough about Novell, but typically you want your databases as far away from the internet as possible, I know Sybase will work on Linux. Why not combine Sybase and mySQL on one box (Linux ?). >>



There's an accounting program that runs on Sybase and only works in a Novell environment. Administration loves the program, hence why Novell will be in our environment for quite some time.

I wasn't sure if i wanted to run the web, database, and file sharing on the same server. That isnt a bad idea now that I think about it.
For sure, I would want the email by itself. I have this email package in mind that runs nicely on BSD. I would like to stick with Redhat
for the web, database, and samba.

 

[SaigonK]

What program is that Essbase? ?
Novell supports pure IP so it should be just fine in your netowrk.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< I have this email package in mind that runs nicely on BSD. >>



qmail?

as far as web, database, and file sharing, how many users are you going to have to support? What kind of hardware are we talking about?

 

[LuckyTaxi]

<< I have this email package in mind that runs nicely on BSD. >>



i've had far too many problems with qmail. we're looking at a package called
dmail from a company overseas. it's like $300 for 20,000 user.

The web server will serve the school's website along with the helpdesk
platform we plan to introduce for the faculty member.

There are atleast 50 faculty member, and i really doubt the website will get
much hits. Don't forget about the students, there are about 2 thousand, but we're not sure if we want them to utilize the online helpdesk.

hardware wise, we're getting new rackmount servers for the web, email, and file sharing. We're looking for ways to group the applications together so that we won't have to support many standalone servers. I am afraid of putting too much stress on the servers, but the only thing that we will probably worry about is the email application. we may look to isolate that.


as far as web, database, and file sharing, how many users are you going to have to support? What kind of hardware are we talking about?

 

[n0cmonkey]

scsi would be your friend.

 

[Elledan]

<< scsi would be your friend. >>

SCSI RAID, that is

 

[Woodie]

W2K Domain requires a DNS service which supports Dynamic DNS, it can be W2K based (on AD if you want), but it doesn't have to be W2K. We host our W2K root DNS on QIP (which I don't think you'll get), but the point is that it's a *nix based DNS, and works fine.

Sharing an Internet visible server: putting a web-site on it and email, is an ok measure from a cost-savings perspective, but undesirable from a security perspective, or from a management perspective. What happens when you put out some new email code, and it takes down the box? Now you've lost http as well as mail services. And what happens when you have to put a hot-fix on to fix some problem in IIS, and it breaks the mail service?

I would strongly recommend two server rooms, in different buildings on the camps. Put one W2K DC in each room, so if one building burns down, you haven't lost the whole domain. Do the same thing w/ your DNS servers. Put your SQL servers close to the application servers that talk to them the most.

Try not to mix application servers (web, email, applications, database) with infrastructure services (domain, NDS, DNS...)