Hello all, I'll give you a quick overview of our setup first. 1 x PDC (server 2003) 1 x BDC (server 2003) 1 x Server 2003 running Exchange 2003 1 x Standalone server that holds vast amounts of data, but is only used as a dumping ground for scanned images (server 2003) 1 x Backup server, with autoloader. My question is this, we have had an independant consultancy firm in to decide if the way were are running the IT is suitable, they have given the thumbs up to almost everything, apart from the have recommended virtualising all servers, but i'm not convinced that this would be beneifical with our current setup.We don't have an issue with the speed of the servers/apps, backups. Can people share their thoughts on whether this is a good idea/bad idea, or not to bother and to keep them seperated and run as we have been doing for the past 4 years.

Servers in Active Directory are not identified by what FSMO role they may have [pdc]. There are no bdc's in AD. We use virtualization for testing before rolling out to production. Works fine. If virtualizing for production you need beefy hardware to suppport the multiple sessions. Imagine the power if you knew how to internet search

You can also use ready images of virtual machines to restore a system faster. You may reduce energy and hardware costs with VM's. Those two reasons are normally why one would choose to vitual a server or farm. I read it wrong and answer it wrong too. So get off my case you peanut.

Thanks for your responses both