Virtualization makes it easier to go the "one major server per service" route, allowing you to consolidate hardware while at the same time satisfying those developers that insist their apps require a dedicated server (which I usually interpret as "we're too lazy to develop and test our app to the point that it plays well with others").
So, my voter is more servers, in a virtual environment. From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:54 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Do you all like fewer or more servers? I only have a hundred users. Been doing this for about 12 years. I always thought it was better to have more or less one major server per service. That way, if one of our services came down or needed work, I wouldn't be taking down the entire system. I have a buddy with fewer users than me and he has 20+ servers. Some in the air (virtual), some on the ground. I have seven servers running. Both of us host our web services at an outside firm. Both of us use Exchange. An outside firm says we should go with only a couple of servers. That sure would make things easier, but... ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
