>I'd prefer to have a separate server as my IIS server for Intranet apps and a separate server running Scheduled tasks that run a lot of FoxPro apps.
>
>But, the IT people want to save something (we're a total blade virtual environment) and install both on one server.
>
>I just feel that it is not a good practice because:
>
>1. IIS is an attack target
>2.I might need to reboot the scheduler
>3.I need to fiddle around on the scheduler and run apps to see why they hang, etc.
>
>Anybody?

If it wouldn't be for those reasons, it would then be a question of evaluating the workload. If it fits OK, than, yes, one box would do it.

Af far as point 1, if I would stop all my decision on it, I wouldn't have installed all those servers. lol If the server is well installed, a proper firewall, good security verifications, point 1 should not be a factor.

As far as point 2 and 3, a Windows Scheduler is primary for executing scheduled tasks right? And, all that is automated and standalone. So, if it is just a question on getting a better access to its interface, assuming the tech or security team wouldn't allow you to gain access to the server, you could still do it by your application. I enable, disable, stop and start Windows Scheduler tasks directly from the Web application. All the infrastructure I set up have the goal to minimize as possible the interventions directly on the server. It is usually when people access a server directly that we end up with surprises. lol

IAC, feel free to share some more inputs. You probably have more reasons to think about that setup so the more we know the more we can provide input.