You have been supporting CSM Tech Publishing\'s Windows Server 2012 R2 server ne

Question

You have been supporting CSM Tech Publishing's Windows Server 2012 R2 server network for over a year. The office has two Windows Server 2012 R2 servers running Active Directory and a number of other roles. Management has informed you that a small sales office is opening in the same building three floors up. The Sales manger wantes to install a sales applcation on a server located in the sales office, This serer will have limited physical sercurity because theres no speacial room dedicated for it, which means it will be accessible to non-IT personnel and visitors. You're considering installing Windows Server 2012 R2 Server Core on the new server because accessing its console regularly probably wont be necessary, and this server will be manage from one of the other CSM Tech Publishing servers. What are the benefits and drawbacks of using Server Core for this branch office? What are some things you should do to set up this server management environment?

Explanation / Answer

Advantgaes of server core:

>One of the main benefits to a Server Core deployment is that Server Core has a smaller attack surface than that of a standard Windows Server deployment. There are a number of Windows Server components that do not get installed in Server Core deployments, such as Internet Explorer, Server Manager and the Control Panel.

>Greater stability.
Because a Server Core installation has fewer running processes and services than a Full installation, the overall stability of Server Core is greater. Fewer things can go wrong, and fewer settings can be configured incorrectly.

>Reduced maintenance.
Because Server Core has fewer binaries than a Full installation, there's less to maintain. For example, fewer hot fixes and security updates need to be applied to a Server Core installation. Microsoft analyzed the binaries included in Server Core and the patches released for Windows Server 2000 and Windows Server 2003 and found that if a Server Core installation option had been available for Windows Server 2000, approximately 60 percent of the patches required would have been eliminated, while for Windows Server 2003, about 40 percent of them would have

>Simplified management.
Because there are fewer things to manage on a Server Core installation, it's easier to configure and support a Server Core installation than a Full one—once you get the hang of it.

>Reduced attack surface.
Because Server Core has fewer system services running on it than Full installation does, there's less attack surface (that is, fewer possible vectors for malicious attacks on the server). This means that a Server Core installation is more secure than a similarly configured Full installation

Disadvantages:
>Disadvantage of using Server Core is the steep learning curve.
>Another major disadvantage to using Server Core is that not all server roles will work in a Server Core environment. Even Windows Server 2012 does not allow all server roles to function in Server Core environments. The following are the only roles that are compatible with Server Core
1.Active Directory Certificate Services
2.Active Directory Domain Services
3.DHCP Server
4.DNS Server
5.File Services (including File Server Resource Manager)
6.Active Directory Lightweight Directory Services
7.Hyper-V

>Even if the primary applications that you plan to run on a server are designed to work with Server Core, there might be certain support applications that do not work with Server Core
Example:
your current antivirus solution may not be Server Core-compatible.
Likewise, some backup agents will not work in Server Core environments.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Y
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.