Best home for DNN site?

We use a DotNetNuke based in-out board for our employees. The server
currently hosting that site is being retired, replaced by a shiny new
server. However, this new server, in addition to its other functions, is
going to serve as an additional DC for our (currently) single-dc domain. As
I understand, best practices says NOT to host AD on an IIS server that's
published to the Internet. So I'm trying to figure out the best new home
for the DNN-based site.

Candidate 1: our Small Business Server 2003.
Despite the best practices admonition of not running AD and published IIS on
the same server, SBS comes with several websites intended for outside access
(Remote Web Workplace, Outlook Web Access, OMA, etc). That being the case,
the server is already exposed to the internet. DNN could be installed on
the SBS and the site could be published....but should it?

Candidate 2: New AD Server/File Server
I could do this, but is it a good idea? This would mean TWO domain
controllers are now published to the internet; that increases my attack
surface, no? Hmmm....

Candidate 3: SQL server.
This is half of our mission-critical CRM system, which is Microsoft
DotNET-based. The other half is the IIS server which runs the .NET
front-end to the system.

Candidate 4: IIS Server
This is the web server hosting the web front-end to our CRM database. The
application vendor naturally wants only their stuff to run on the SQL and
IIS servers, for performance and support reasons, but we purchased the
servers and maintain them. We are a shop of under 30 users and both the SQL
and IIS servers far exceeded the vendor-recommended specs when purchsed, so
I think running an additional site on this server wouldn't place a
noticeable burden on it. But there's the issue of running an additional
site on the server, which isn't a "supported" configuration.

It seems I only have imperfect options. The other option that only just now
occurred to me is to use a free web-hosting service for this single,
special-purpose DNN site. Bad idea also? It's only because of multiple
requests by users who frequently go offsite (our sales staff) that I'm
wanting to publish this site; they do have a legitimate need to use it.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

BJ

This can only be answered by you. If it was me, I would lean towards
having an app / iis / sql server and AD being hosted separately. I vote #4
unless this can affect the existing applications.

DNN can run on a domain controller but depending on traffic, it might not be
a good idea. Permissions on DC's are different than normal machines, making
deployment and debugging a tad more difficult.

Tx,

Steve Schofield
Microsoft MVP - IIS

"Bryan L" <blinton.nospam.RemoveThis@connellinsurance.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23ab8CwlPHHA.4280@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> We use a DotNetNuke based in-out board for our employees. The server
> currently hosting that site is being retired, replaced by a shiny new
> server. However, this new server, in addition to its other functions, is
> going to serve as an additional DC for our (currently) single-dc domain.
> As I understand, best practices says NOT to host AD on an IIS server
> that's published to the Internet. So I'm trying to figure out the best
> new home for the DNN-based site.
>
> Candidate 1: our Small Business Server 2003.
> Despite the best practices admonition of not running AD and published IIS
> on the same server, SBS comes with several websites intended for outside
> access (Remote Web Workplace, Outlook Web Access, OMA, etc). That being
> the case, the server is already exposed to the internet. DNN could be
> installed on the SBS and the site could be published....but should it?
>
> Candidate 2: New AD Server/File Server
> I could do this, but is it a good idea? This would mean TWO domain
> controllers are now published to the internet; that increases my attack
> surface, no? Hmmm....
>
> Candidate 3: SQL server.
> This is half of our mission-critical CRM system, which is Microsoft
> DotNET-based. The other half is the IIS server which runs the .NET
> front-end to the system.
>
> Candidate 4: IIS Server
> This is the web server hosting the web front-end to our CRM database. The
> application vendor naturally wants only their stuff to run on the SQL and
> IIS servers, for performance and support reasons, but we purchased the
> servers and maintain them. We are a shop of under 30 users and both the
> SQL and IIS servers far exceeded the vendor-recommended specs when
> purchsed, so I think running an additional site on this server wouldn't
> place a noticeable burden on it. But there's the issue of running an
> additional site on the server, which isn't a "supported" configuration.
>
> It seems I only have imperfect options. The other option that only just
> now occurred to me is to use a free web-hosting service for this single,
> special-purpose DNN site. Bad idea also? It's only because of multiple
> requests by users who frequently go offsite (our sales staff) that I'm
> wanting to publish this site; they do have a legitimate need to use it.
>
> Thanks in advance for any thoughts.
>
> BJ
>