0

We are going through a company merger and people want to do things differently!

Current situation:

  • 2 DCs.
  • 1 Exchange Server on 1 of the DCs (not SBS).The other half of the email is handled on a hosted Exchange server.
  • Half the PCs are joined to one domain and half are not joined to any domain (the ones using hosted Exchange).

Currently desired situation:

  • 0 DCs (I know this isn't possible when using Exchange).
  • Everyone's PC not joined to a domain
  • 1 Exchange server on the network that everyone can set up their Outlook to log into with both former domains MX records pointing at it.

I have a clean box to install 2008R2 and Exchange 2010 on. My current thought is to set up the Exchange as it's own domain and just set up the users on it and have them log in. Almost like setting up my own hosted exchange but on-site! This means the DCs can be ignored or demoted as desired and Exchange can sit there doing it's thing without being concerned what happens elsewhere. Is this the best option or are there gotchas that will kill it dead or better ways of doing things? We are a small company (less than 15 users) so convenience and flexibility rather than super-slick administration is more important.

sysadmin1138
  • 133,124
  • 18
  • 176
  • 300
Dominic Fitzpatrick
  • 115
  • 1
  • 2
  • 9
  • 1
    This isn't the best plan I've ever seen. Can you tell us why you'd like to do it this way? – joeqwerty Sep 13 '10 at 16:26
  • For 15 users, why not just all go with hosted exchange? *shakes head* people do things so strangely sometimes.. – GregD Sep 13 '10 at 16:28
  • I would say super-slick administration is the means to achieve convenience and flexibility. Also, WHY on EARTH would you want ot have 0 Domain Controllers, and NO computers in the domain? – Nate Sep 13 '10 at 16:28
  • Well, the admin of one of the networks does not want PCs to be joined to a domain. It seems only sensible to have all PCs set up the same way so that implies no PCs joined to a domain. This means we don't get any benefits from having a DC on one machine and Exchange on another, we just tie up one server to allow people to log into Exchange on another server. The other servers will just be used for SQL and file serving. Ideally I would like non-existent version of Exchange that doesn't require Active Directory but as this is not possible, I am looking for a nearly there solution. – Dominic Fitzpatrick Sep 13 '10 at 16:35
  • The owner of the company doesn't like the fixed cost of hosted exchange. – Dominic Fitzpatrick Sep 13 '10 at 16:36
  • Fixed cost for hosted Exchange means you don't have to have some funky setup like what you're proposing here. This makes no sense to me what-so-ever. The owner of the company would rather purchase Exchange 2010, the server to run it on, Windows Server 2008 R2, etc., etc. then to pay less than $10/month for less than 15 users? – GregD Sep 13 '10 at 16:40
  • I suggest that you add every computer to the active directory. There are no good reasons not to add them. The centralized management should be reason enough, not to mention group policies, password management, etc. Is there any good reason this other sys admin is advocating keeping work stations OUT of the domain? To me that is a red flag that this admin doesn't understand what active directory is or what it does. – Nate Sep 13 '10 at 16:41
  • @Nate: I agree with you. I'm really not meaning to sound holier than thou, but this whole question reeks of ineptitude. First and foremost I question a local install of Exchange 2010 for <15 users. On top of that, the OP is asking how to install 2010 in the most unconventional way possible, short of trying to install exchange 2010 on an 8088 and accessing it by RDP. o_0 – GregD Sep 13 '10 at 16:50
  • @Dominic, it is my personal recommendation that you either do as Greg suggests and do a hosted exchange server (possibly Google Apps is another alternative). Or follow the conventional Exchange 2010 Setup guidelines. – Nate Sep 13 '10 at 16:53
  • The admin that doesn't want any computers joined to a domain, should be fired. Even in a 15 user environment, there isn't a good reason to not have AD running. – DanBig Sep 13 '10 at 19:05
  • We already have the licences and server (MS Action Pack and reused server). The hosted exchange would have cost ~$120pm so maybe that is the problem. If we could get it for $10pm that I guess that might be a reason to reconsider. People like Outlook and Calenders etc. but want to be able to use their PCs however they want without domain profiles etc. Not sure what to do here, but thanks for the comments! – Dominic Fitzpatrick Sep 13 '10 at 23:01
  • I highly doubt end-users don't want profiles. End-users really don't care about profiles because their computer will work the same (to them) with or without profiles. The price I mentioned was less than $10/mo/per user. – GregD Sep 14 '10 at 03:04
  • "End-users" doesn't really cover these people, they are half DBAs and half developers and ex-developers. Anyway, IP addresses and routing being done tonight so I guess I am off into the unknown in the next few days! – Dominic Fitzpatrick Sep 14 '10 at 08:25

1 Answers1

1

As with the comments left on the main question, I recommend against what you propose. If you want to get off an AD domain, then so be it. (Again, I disagree wholeheartedly, but hey, it's your gig...)

Sign up for Hosted Exchange or Google Apps for Your Domain and live in IMAP and CalDAV

gWaldo
  • 11,957
  • 8
  • 42
  • 69