Home: Server 2008 R2 or SBS 2008?

[InorganicMatter]

So right now I'm running a Windows 2003 server at the house. It was one of my first forays into real server technologies - the AD is a disaster, and my DNS is less than optimal. Additionally, the system needs some new hardware. So, over the summer, I want to upgrade the CPU, and I want to replace my aging RAID5 array of 6x400GB array with a larger and more reliable 3x1TB. (Yes, this is a true hard RAID5 board that runs like a bat out of hell and cost a minor fortune.)

Anyway, I get all sorts of free MS software through school, so I can put pretty much anything I want on here. I want to run my own Exchange server as well. I installed and run SBS2008 at work, and very much like the tight integration and nice management tools. So the question is, do I just run SBS 2008, or do I set up Server 2008 R2, and manually set up Exchange 2007, SQL 2008, etc.? I want the integration of SBS, but I kind of like the idea of using a server OS based on Win7 instead of Vista.

 

[Arainach]

Server 2008 is Vista-based.

Personally, if I had both, I'd just use Server 2008, especially if you're used to 2003.

 

[Hunterzyph]

Actually Server 2008 R2 is Windows 7 'based', in that the kernel is upgraded to the 7XXX.

 

[lAciDl]

i would use sbs 2008, i know its what i will be using when i get around to redoing my home server.

I might use Hyper-v server 2008 with a sbs 2008 server and if i need to offset other roles or created vms it just makes it easier. I was messing with a hyper-v server we setup for testing at work and its not the beefest machine(quadcore xeon, 4gb ram) and it runs 2008 2008 std(DC), 2008 std(SQL), and a 2003std(secondard dns) vm's very nicely though it needs more ram to run sbs 2008