> I'm getting ready to deploy Windows Server 2003 at a company of about 12
> people local and another dozen or so that will eventually connect via the
> internet. The server is intended to be a File server and to run Sharepoint
> Services 3.0.
>
> One of the tech's suggested that it might be possible to run the Server as
> a virtualized server on the box that we intended as the server machine.
> The advantages are that the Server becomes hardware independent and the
> backup becomes 1 or 2 files that are backed up during the evening hours.
> The total backup of the file would probably be under 100Gb of information
> (right now they use a XP box as a file share with a 60GB hard drive that
> is shared and it's about 90% full).
>
> What would be the downside to using a virtual server in this particular
> situation? I've already setup a test bed with a virtual server that works
> as a file server and runs off my local workstation and it appears to run
> acceptably in a limited test (4-5 user access). Any thoughts?

> We run lots of our servers as vitual machines. Some on VM Ware and some on
> MS Virtual server. It is a great way to control costs. In fact our
> position is that new machines are virtual unless you can justify it
> otherwise.
>
> The hardware independency is a great thing. However your comment regarding
> backup might be a little simplistic. Backing up SharePoint properly can be
> a pain. In order to do it properly so that you can recover individual
> files requires an agent for the backup software that you are using. In
> your scenario you will only be able to back up the entire machine. Also,
> for storage you may want to point to disks outside the VM. If this is the
> case you will have to back up more than 2 files.
>
>
>
> "Larry Kuderick" <npm[nospam]@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> I'm getting ready to deploy Windows Server 2003 at a company of about 12
>> people local and another dozen or so that will eventually connect via the
>> internet. The server is intended to be a File server and to run
>> Sharepoint Services 3.0.
>>
>> One of the tech's suggested that it might be possible to run the Server
>> as a virtualized server on the box that we intended as the server
>> machine. The advantages are that the Server becomes hardware independent
>> and the backup becomes 1 or 2 files that are backed up during the evening
>> hours. The total backup of the file would probably be under 100Gb of
>> information (right now they use a XP box as a file share with a 60GB hard
>> drive that is shared and it's about 90% full).
>>
>> What would be the downside to using a virtual server in this particular
>> situation? I've already setup a test bed with a virtual server that works
>> as a file server and runs off my local workstation and it appears to run
>> acceptably in a limited test (4-5 user access). Any thoughts?
>

> We run lots of our servers as vitual machines. Some on VM Ware and some on
> MS Virtual server. It is a great way to control costs. In fact our
> position is that new machines are virtual unless you can justify it
> otherwise.
>
> The hardware independency is a great thing. However your comment regarding
> backup might be a little simplistic. Backing up SharePoint properly can be
> a pain. In order to do it properly so that you can recover individual
> files requires an agent for the backup software that you are using. In
> your scenario you will only be able to back up the entire machine. Also,
> for storage you may want to point to disks outside the VM. If this is the
> case you will have to back up more than 2 files.
>
>
>
> "Larry Kuderick" <npm[nospam]@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> I'm getting ready to deploy Windows Server 2003 at a company of about 12
>> people local and another dozen or so that will eventually connect via the
>> internet. The server is intended to be a File server and to run
>> Sharepoint Services 3.0.
>>
>> One of the tech's suggested that it might be possible to run the Server
>> as a virtualized server on the box that we intended as the server
>> machine. The advantages are that the Server becomes hardware independent
>> and the backup becomes 1 or 2 files that are backed up during the evening
>> hours. The total backup of the file would probably be under 100Gb of
>> information (right now they use a XP box as a file share with a 60GB hard
>> drive that is shared and it's about 90% full).
>>
>> What would be the downside to using a virtual server in this particular
>> situation? I've already setup a test bed with a virtual server that works
>> as a file server and runs off my local workstation and it appears to run
>> acceptably in a limited test (4-5 user access). Any thoughts?
>