I'd like to get some opinions on my idea of splitting server roles. I plan on implementing Active Directory this year for ease of controlling data access, pushing out software updates, etc.
Currently I'm administering about 20 computers, and have one server running Server 2008 Standard which is providing DNS, DHCP, and File / Print services (which include a network installation of SAGE 50). I'm currently doing some tracking with performance monitor to see how many resources are actually being used on the server and a typical reading is as follows:
4% CPU load, 0% network adapter use, 13/sec disk I/O, and 45% of memory (4 GB total RAM)
I know it is "best practice" to give a domain controller its own computer and to have a failover domain controller; however, I'm wondering how much overkill such a set-up would be:
Current server using its services and adding a DC + Brand new box solely as a DC
I do intend to look at centralized user document storage ideas (either with folder redirection and/or using a home drive), so I expect an increase in I/O because of users actively accessing files from the server than their local computer (and increase I/O for replication).
What I'm considering is this: Current server becomes a DC with DNS, DHCP + Brand new box as a DC + File/print services.
Does this seem like overkill? I'm not considering price at the moment, I'm just looking at hardware requirements and implications.