Re: Migrating to SBS 2008 - am I missing something?

A migration will give you a number of advantages. You won't lose SID
history and can preserve security information on file shares (can use
Robocopy to move data to a new server and copy the permissions). You
won't need to export mailboxes, you can move them instead. Your users
will also be able to reply to old emails from within the company.

Generally speaking a migration is the preferred method unless your
existing domain has problems with AD.

If you do a migration, you will have little impact on production, you
can bring the new server online during the week and reserve final steps
for the weekend so you don't lose your weekend.

If you go the route you are planning, you will need to export mailboxes
and then import the PST files using PowerShell. (no ExMerge on Exchange
2007). Refer to the thread "Moving pst files from SBS 2003 to 2008"
posted 7/2 in this forum by Bobby Janow for my comments on how to do
that.

Note that users will not be able to reply to old emails from within the
company because those mails will have been sent from a different
account than the users will currently be using. You avoid this problem
with the migration.

If you have mailboxes over 2.1 GB then you will have problems with your
export using ExMerge on the old system because ExMerge doesn't support
Unicode PST files. (PowerSHell does).

I recommend you follow the steps in this technet article:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l...34(WS.10).aspx


Hope that helps,

Mark D. MacLachlan

"eggedd2k" <> wrote in message
news:e895ea82-285d-411b-b858-...
> Thanks for your responses.
>
>
> We're moving from Windows Server 2000 to Windows SBS 2008. We've also
> got Exchange Server 2003 running on a member server.I want to change
> the internal domain name to a .local address. Currently it's a .co.uk
> address.

Use ".loc" instead of ".local"
Some OS's (like Macs) will choke if the TLD is more than three characters.
Yes, the MS-SBS people "push" people to use ".local" in the SBS
documentation,..but it was a bad choice to do so,...and they probably just
don't have the ambition to change the documentation even though they should.

But there is no technical reason to change from .co.uk just as long you
understand the difference between the AD Domain and the Public
Domain,...they are two different unrelelated things,...whether or not the
spelling is the same or different is a personal choice. You should end up
using Split-DNS in either case,...the only difference is if the Split-DNS
uses one Zone or two Zones.

--
Phillip Windell

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

eggedd2k <> wrote:
> Thanks for your responses.
>
>
> We're moving from Windows Server 2000 to Windows SBS 2008. We've also
> got Exchange Server 2003 running on a member server.I want to change
> the internal domain name to a .local address. Currently it's a .co.uk
> address.

Is this causing you any trouble as is? There's no law stating you have to
use .local (or .loc or .lan or whatever).

>
> Essentially as the current setup will be 9 years old at the end of
> this year I wanted to set the new servers up and start with a "blank
> canvas" - rather than migrate any of the existing domain/AD etc
> settings. The current settings are pretty much 8 years old and we've
> had some issues over the years.

What sort? Seriously, it's so much more work the way you have proposed it,
it would have to be a major AD screwup to make me want to take this route.
>
>
> Outlook/Exchange Data
>
> I was hoping to be able to locally export user's Outlook data prior to
> the move to the C: drive and then import this to their new Outlook
> profile on Exchange 2007.

You can, but it sucks. And you don't want to use "import" in Outlook.
Instead, open the PST file and copy the data into the correct folders in the
mailbox, then close the PST. This is very very very tedious especially for
42 users.

> I have to say I wasn't aware of the
> potential NDR issue.

Yep, You can possibly work round it by adding the old X500 address to the
new accounts, but it's a pain.

> User Outlook data varies between between a gig
> and two or three gigs. We don't use any public folders.
>
>
> User profiles/printers
>
> I was going to set up these after logging the user on to the new
> domain. 4 icons and one printer pretty much does it for each user.

What about desktop data? Application data? IE favorites? Outlook nickname
caches? Etc.
>
>
> Software Applications
>
> Users have three line of business applications. I was expecting to
> have to reinstall these which normally takes a couple of minutes per
> app per computer.

Do the math - you'll have to deal with a lot on each computer. Could be an
hour per. Is it worth it?
>
>
>
> File/Network Shares
>
> We've currently got more file/network shares than we need. All users
> have full control permissions on these. In terms of the actual data
> this should be a straight forward copy routine.

OK, no big deal there either way.
>
>
>
>
> Do you still think a migration would be better? I'm still not
> convinced but greatly appreciate your input.

Absolutely yes.

Eggedd2k, I agree with Lanwench, the migration is the path of least
resistance.

Do some cleanup on the exiting AD first. Don't like the name then use
the Domain Rename tools from Microsoft.

Don't like the OU structure then change it. Problems with DHCP,
please, it should not be necessary to replace the infrastructure for
any of the items you have mentioned. Just fix what you have first.
Doesn't matter if it is 9 years old.

I will however contradict Lanwench on one item, regarding the x500
addresses, you can of course script that update so it really isn't a
big deal unless you are unable to write scripts.

Regards,

Mark D. MacLachlan

eggedd2k <> wrote:
> it's not just the .local issue though. the main reasons for a fresh
> install as opposed to a migration are the overall age of the current
> setup (DNS, AD, User Groups, Permissions etc) and the fact that we
> want to essentially want to start with a fresh, fully optimal domain
> infrastructure.
>
> if the current domain settings etc were top notch and we wanted to
> just upgrade then I would do a migration. based on how things are at
> present a clean install makes much more sense to me.

What does age have to do with this? Nothing. If you had a properly
configured infrastructure when you set it up, it doesn't matter how old it
is.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but it really sounds to me as though you
haven't been through something like this before, honestly.

eggedd2k <> wrote:
> thanks for your replies.
>
> are there any Microsoft guides on migrating from Windows 2000 Server
> to Windows SBS 2008 and secondly from Exchange Server 2003 on a
> separate member server to the Windows SBS 2008 DC?

No, there isn't any good doc on this, unfortunately.I did a similar install
recently but I had Exchange2000 on a W2k DC (and hence could not dcpromo it
to a member server), so I first had to migrate to two temporary servers
running W2003 and move mailboxes to E2003. This was a pain for me, but
everything was seamless to the end users. If you have some spare hardware
and can do it this way, I recommend it.

Download and read thoroughly the "SBS2003 to SBS2008 migration guide" - some
will not apply, but a lot will. The post migration wizard won't work, so
you'll need to move all your users/computers/groups manually into the SBS
OUs and then run the user roles wizard.

Or do check out the www.sbsmigration.com site for help.


>
> don't you have to bring the new DC online as a member server alongside
> the current server and then promote it? Obviously Dell SBS 2008
> systems are DC's out of the box nowadays. You don't have to DCPROMO
> them.

You don't DCPromo them but they are not fully configured and AD is not
operational out of the box. However, two things make that moot regardless:

1) In a migration, you need to do a flat new install using an answer file on
USB stick

2) Sensible admins always flatten and reinstall any preinstalled boxen
anyway

"Jon-Alfred Smith" <jas@norway_nospam.no> wrote in message
news:...
> The problem with Macs has been that since OS X 10.2 .local has been
> used for the Rendezvous service. Here the recommendation has been to
> use .lan, .office, anything bnut .local. There is no limit of three
> characters.

With the native MAC OS (v9 and older) there was a three character limit.

--
Phillip Windell

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

Phillip Windell <> wrote:
> "Jon-Alfred Smith" <jas@norway_nospam.no> wrote in message
> news:...
>> The problem with Macs has been that since OS X 10.2 .local has been
>> used for the Rendezvous service. Here the recommendation has been to
>> use .lan, .office, anything bnut .local. There is no limit of three
>> characters.
>
> With the native MAC OS (v9 and older) there was a three character
> limit.

Hmm - could be; I never had to deal with this then. But anyone using Macs
now ought to be on the latest version of OSX ...or they probably also use NT
and Win9x.

Hello eggedd2k,

I'm thinking about doing the same thing you proposed, and for pretty much
the same reasons.

I have 20 users in a Win2000 domain first upgraded to SBS2000 then to
SBS2003. Over the years I've had some issues with SP's patches which I
suspect, relate to the history of the AD. Like you, I would be really happy
to get a "fresh start".

So, I don't mind doing some manual labour - 20 users isn't that bad.
Basically it's about moving data out of the old box and into the new. With
Exchange it is pretty tedious, but most of this can be done in parallel.

I didn't think about the reply issue either, but I'm not sure if it even
matters just as long users are told about it.
Adding the X500 isn't bad either, I don't mind doing that 20 times.

For the user profile migration, I thought of using this method:
http://www.raygibson.net/kb/profile_migration/
(Makes sense to me, but I haven't tried this, so be warned..)

JJ


"eggedd2k" <> kirjoitti viestissä
news:a4fd20e6-1fa5-473d-9e02-...
> thanks for your replies.
>
> are there any Microsoft guides on migrating from Windows 2000 Server
> to Windows SBS 2008 and secondly from Exchange Server 2003 on a
> separate member server to the Windows SBS 2008 DC?
>
> don't you have to bring the new DC online as a member server alongside
> the current server and then promote it? Obviously Dell SBS 2008
> systems are DC's out of the box nowadays. You don't have to DCPROMO
> them.
>

JJ <> wrote:
> Hello eggedd2k,
>
> I'm thinking about doing the same thing you proposed, and for pretty
> much the same reasons.
>
> I have 20 users in a Win2000 domain first upgraded to SBS2000 then to
> SBS2003. Over the years I've had some issues with SP's patches which I
> suspect, relate to the history of the AD. Like you, I would be really
> happy to get a "fresh start".
>
> So, I don't mind doing some manual labour - 20 users isn't that bad.
> Basically it's about moving data out of the old box and into the new.
> With Exchange it is pretty tedious, but most of this can be done in
> parallel.
> I didn't think about the reply issue either, but I'm not sure if it
> even matters just as long users are told about it.
> Adding the X500 isn't bad either, I don't mind doing that 20 times.
>
> For the user profile migration, I thought of using this method:
> http://www.raygibson.net/kb/profile_migration/
> (Makes sense to me, but I haven't tried this, so be warned..)
>
> JJ

My advice? If you're going to do this, make a clean break and don't migrate
profiles. tell users they will be responsible for first saving all their
data on the server (or implement a folder redirection policy for My
Documents and Desktop ahead of time). Tell them their Outlook nickname
caches will disappear and will automatically be recreated as they go. Tell
them to save their IE favorites in their My Documents folders.

Profile migration can be a nightmare. Avoid it. They can re-create the
Adorable Kittens desktop wallpaper and rearrange their shortcuts into the
shape of a heart ...they did it themselves the first time, surely. ;-)


>
>
> "eggedd2k" <> kirjoitti viestissä
> news:a4fd20e6-1fa5-473d-9e02-...
>> thanks for your replies.
>>
>> are there any Microsoft guides on migrating from Windows 2000 Server
>> to Windows SBS 2008 and secondly from Exchange Server 2003 on a
>> separate member server to the Windows SBS 2008 DC?
>>
>> don't you have to bring the new DC online as a member server
>> alongside the current server and then promote it? Obviously Dell
>> SBS 2008 systems are DC's out of the box nowadays. You don't have
>> to DCPROMO them.