This is a fairly common question, and many hardware and software vendors will still tell you “Yes!” Their reasoning has more to do reliability than it does hardware performance. The concept is: it is better not to have ALL of your internal resources down in case of a server crash. And, with multiple servers in your office, you can spread your resources across those servers for added protection in case there is a system malfunction.
One of the reasons for this potential instability that can occur when running everything on a single server, is incompatibilities in software. Most small business offices run Microsoft’s Small Business Server for their primary server. In this case, Microsoft has already crammed as many functions and features as they could into one server while maintaining a semblance of stability. Pile on top of that a database server – that any database admin will tell you should always run by itself – and a application server that often ends up being the bad boy in the mix, receiving the most updates from your software vendor, and you end up with a server that is just itching to crash.

However, the multiple server solution requires a sizable hardware investment which comes with a 3 to 5 year upgrade cycle, meaning another potential outflow of cash for your servers.

So how does the small business owner weigh the pros and cons of multiple servers?

I’m going to take a look at this by focusing on two hardware options:

1. Multi -server setup
2. Virtual server setup

A multi-server setup is pretty straight forward . Generally, you have a domain controller which is the central hub of your network, handled all of you users. Users are assigned permissions for what they can access on the network. In many small businesses, the multi-server setup also acts as the mail and scheduling server using Microsoft Exchange.

Other servers can play the role of database server, application server. Often, one of these machines would serve as a backup to your domain controller.

An application server could have an interruption of service, and your network would remain functional because the role of user permissions is handled elsewhere. If that server crashes or has hardware failure, that doesn’t take all of your office functions down with it.

The downside of this: significant hardware costs and not very green friendly, as these servers generate tons of heat and use excessive amounts of electricity.

The concept of a virtual server setup is a little more complex. Think of it as a carton of eggs. The master server itself is the overall carton and the eggs represent a section of this master server divided into what I will call “mini-servers” within the carton.

Each egg functions like its own server, has its own copy of Windows and its own software. If one egg breaks, the rest of the eggs still remain intact, you merely replace the broken egg. But if the carton fails (master server) then you will have larger problems as all the eggs fail with it.

The benefits to the virtual server setup are in the cost. One really well-planned, highly developed virtual server will cost much less, create a lot less heat and noise, and use considerably less power.

Either server system requires a good backup plan, and the right backup plan would make the virtual server concept a very realistic cost-saving option.

Have a question on these or other technology needs? Contact us! You can also follow us on twitter, @networkTask and on Facebook!