SP2016: MinRole v.s. Preferred Architecture

By | 2016-03-09

SP2013-logoCouple of months ago, the Exchange Team published something called the Preferred Architecture for Exchange Server 2016. The post describes and details an actual architecture (infrastructure) for Exchange Server 2016. It is also not the first time the Exchange Tam has put this kind of guidance out there. This guidance is introduced as:

“While Exchange 2016 offers a wide variety of architectural choices for on-premises deployments, the architecture discussed below is our most scrutinized one ever. While there are other supported deployment architectures, they are not recommended.”

That to me is a powerful statement about the value of this guidance. Now, if you have been reading on the SharePoint Server 2016 developments you will surely have heard about a new feature called: MinRole. This feature is introduced as

“MinRole is designed to transform guidance into code, simplifying deployment and scale with SharePoint ensuring a request is served end-to-end by the receiving server based on the origination of the request (I.e. end user or batch processing) and role of the destination server.”

So we have codified guidance baked right into SharePoint 2016. This message tells me, that there is value in using MinRole, and that it serves a purpose. But this also seems to be somewhat restrictive in how I setup a Farm. For one, the full benefit of the feature is reached at 10+ servers in your Farm. Secondly, the details are not shared to us. So how would I apply any of this guidance to my (customers) Farm?

As it stands, I would applaud that the SharePoint Team (Bill Baer?) would share with us similar guidance on SharePoint Server 2016.

And on a side note, I am also wondering what this will mean for a Product Line Architecture (PLA) for SharePoint Server 2016 and more so for Exchange Server 2016?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *