Re: ADC Tool Step 3 - Resource Mailbox Wizard
From: Rich Roller (rich_at_*REMOVE-THIS*r2c.com)
Date: 04/12/04
- Next message: Doug: "User account syntax correlation to email address"
- Previous message: Chris: "domain.local & ISP smarthost"
- In reply to: Charlotte Zinck [MSFT]: "Re: ADC Tool Step 3 - Resource Mailbox Wizard"
- Next in thread: Charlotte Zinck [MSFT]: "Re: ADC Tool Step 3 - Resource Mailbox Wizard"
- Reply: Charlotte Zinck [MSFT]: "Re: ADC Tool Step 3 - Resource Mailbox Wizard"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:09:32 -0400
Charlotte,
Thanks again for an awesome reply! My comments are dwindling (see
in-line below)...
"Charlotte Zinck [MSFT]" <czinck@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:OBDTEVnHEHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Rich,
>
> Here is an article that talks about the tools in greater detail
in case I
> have missed anything.
> 812593 Exchange Server 2003 Deployment Tools Overview
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=812593
>
> Onto the questions:
>
> #1. Yep, that is the only thing that step 3 does.
>
> #2. The resource mailboxes are still going to be replicated
into the AD
> once the ADC is configured and running. Let me explain: The
actual mailbox
> will still exist on Exchange 5.5 server, but there will be an
object that
> represents it in the AD. I think of the AD as Exchange 2K3's
directory
> (like dir.edb). An object that represents the resource mailbox
has to exist
> in AD so that Exchange 2K3 can access and replicate it with the
content on
> Exchange 5.5, and so the users that are on Exchange 2K3 can
access those
> resource mailboxes. With that said, there is a condition that
email enabled
> objects in the AD can only have a one to one ratio with user
objects (can
> only be "owned" by one AD user). So, even though your mailboxes
will still
> reside in Exchange 5.5, the mailbox object in AD will need to
have that one
> to one ratio.
That kinda sucks. So just to clarify. If we want users who have
migrated to AD/Exch2k3 to be able to have backward connectivity to
the old resource calendar mailboxes on Exch55, the users will
actually be pointing to the resource mbx's counterparts on the
AD-side? I was hoping that on the contrary, the CA would just
allow the new users to browse back to the old Exch55 directory and
point to the resource mbx's where they are really homed. No such
luck, right?
> Also remember that if you delete an object out of the AD that
the associated
> mailbox will automatically be delete from the Exchange 5.5
server!
That really sucks. No way to protect against that on the
55-side??
Thanks again for all your extremely thoughtful & diligent help!!!
-Rich
> Leaving the Exchange organization in a mixed mode (Exchange5.5
and Exchange
> 2K3) is okay for the interim, but is designed for migration and
removing the
> last Exchange 5.5 server will not allow you to move the
organization into
> Native mode and reap the benefits:
> 822446 Overview of the Differences Between Mixed Mode and Native
Mode in
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=822446
>
> #3. Think of the SRS database as an Exchange 5.5 representation
of the
> Exchange 2K3 database. This is the database that Exchange 5.5
uses for
> replication. The SRS database is created as soon as you join
the first
> Exchange2K3 server to your organization so the servers are able
to
> replicate.
>
> This article may help to clarify the migration process:
> 823601 Active Directory Connector Requirements and Implications
Throughout
> an
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=823601
>
> #4. That is correct, you do not need a copy of all content on
your test
> server. Having a copy of the directory should be sufficient to
do the
> migration testing. If you were testing moving mailboxes and
wanted to know
> about the time allotments or performance then you would need to
get a copy
> of the content as well so it matched the production machine.
>
> #5 Your users in the Exchange 5.5 environment will get stamped
with
> ADC-GLOBAL_NAMES so if the Exchange 2K3 is removed then the
users will need
> to be cleaned up. I would highly recommend you keep your test
environment
> separate especially if you are still in the planning stages.
>
> 319474 XADM: How to Remove the ADC Global Names Attribute from
Exchange 5.5
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=319474
>
> Hope this helps,
> Charlotte Zinck [MSFT]
> Microsoft Exchange Support
>
> Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias is
for
> newsgroup purposes only.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
>
> "Rich Roller" <rich_roller@*REMOVE-THIS*whitney.org> wrote in
message
> news:%23TITngZHEHA.2472@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Charlotte,
> >
> > Thank you for your thoughtful reply!
> >
> > Here's some f/u questions:
> >
> > 1. Is it the case that Step 3 ONLY deals with NTDSNoMatch
issues
> > and that these are the only changes it makes? I'm guessing
this
> > but would love to confirm that.
> >
> > 2. In our case, the resource mailboxes which are owned by a
common
> > NT acct, are NOT planning to be moved to AD/Exch2k3, but
rather
> > will stay on NT/Exch55 and be backwardly accessible (we hope)
via
> > trusts, SIDhistory, ADC, CA's, etc. For this reason & others
we
> > don't want to change the shared NT acct setup. So in our
> > scenario, are there major pitfalls to leaving the old resource
> > setup as is, on the old domain?
> >
> > 3. You & someone else mentioned the SRS database. I'm not
> > familiar with it... has to do w/ Site Replication? If we have
a
> > single org/site/server setup on both Exch55 and new Exch2k3
(we're
> > planning an InterOrg migration) does SRS matter?
> >
> > 4. We're giving more thought to a test enviroment including
Exch55
> > test server, but we won't have a test box with enough
diskspace
> > for our IS... at best it could have a copy of our old
Directory...
> > is that what you were suggesting with that article?
> >
> > 5. If we DON'T make a test Exch55 server but we instead make
ADC
> > CA's from our *test* Exch2k3/AD domain to our *production*
Exch55,
> > what is the risk that making those CA's would mess up or
> > compromise the integrity or reliability of our current
production
> > Exch55 directory?
> >
> > Thanks again,
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > "Charlotte Zinck [MSFT]" <czinck@online.microsoft.com> wrote
in
> > message news:ucADkAXHEHA.3748@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Rich,
> > >
> > > Step 3 of the ADC tools is going to add NTDSNomatch to the
> > > CustomAttribute10. So if your AutoAccept is also using this
> > attribute then
> > > you are going to have a conflict.
> > >
> > > Remember the reason that this is happening - the resource
> > mailboxes in
> > > Exchange 5.5 in most cases are not each associated with
> > individual resource
> > > users in the domain and when the resource mailboxes are
moved to
> > AD
> > > duplicate accounts are created. The problem then is that
the
> > admin chooses
> > > the wrong user to delete from the AD and inadvertently
deletes
> > the resource
> > > mailbox in Exchange 5.5. Step 3 of the ADC prevents this
from
> > happening.
> > >
> > > Since you have a unique situation you may want to create
> > resource users for
> > > each resource mailbox and then associate them in the 5.5
> > environment. If
> > > this is done then step 3 of the ADC is run, sees that there
are
> > no resource
> > > mailboxes associated with non-unique users, and nothing is
> > written to
> > > CustomAttribute10. You are manually doing what the wizard
does
> > when it is
> > > run which is to disassociate duplicate resource mailboxes
from
> > one account.
> > >
> > > As for your intention on doing the test migration with the
5.5
> > server still
> > > in production. I think you will be okay as long and you
know
> > what steps you
> > > are doing and how to reverse them. As you mentioned the
ADMT
> > simply copied
> > > the accounts to the active directory retaining SID history
so it
> > didn't
> > > modify anything on the Exchange 5.5 side, but once you get
the
> > SRS database
> > > created then the Exchange 5.5 side "knows" about the new
server
> > and
> > > replicates information with it. What I would rather see is
that
> > you have a
> > > test 5.5 server, as well, in your test environment.
> > >
> > > Here is an article to create a recovery server for Exchange
5.5
> > and you can
> > > put in your test environment:
> > > 177635 XADM: How to Set Up a Disaster Recovery Server for
> > Dir.edb
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/?id=177635
> > >
> > > Hope this helps,
> > > Charlotte Zinck [MSFT]
> > > Microsoft Exchange Support
> > >
> > > Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias
is
> > for
> > > newsgroup purposes only.
> > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers
> > no rights.
> > >
> > > "Rich Roller" <rich@*REMOVE-THIS*r2c.com> wrote in message
> > > news:%23no7riQHEHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > Does anyone know exactly what ADC Tools' Step 3 - Resource
> > Mailbox
> > > > Wizard does, other than changing a mailbox's
> > CustomAttribute10?
> > > >
> > > > I'm asking because I've seen it written that you MUST run
this
> > > > step at least once in order to properly complete the whole
> > > > 55->2003 deployment process. And also it seems that you
> > cannot
> > > > run Step 4 - CA Wizard, unless you complete Step 3 first.
> > > >
> > > > We're contemplating running a test migration setup from
our
> > > > production Exch55 box to a test Exch2k3/WS3 box.
> > > >
> > > > But we're hesitating because of Step 3 which modifies some
> > shared
> > > > mailboxes, at least Attrib10. It turns out that our room
> > > > scheduling (AutoAccept script) application depends on
Attrib10
> > so
> > > > if it gets whacked we're not sure if we can just put it
back
> > > > manually?
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'm beginning to wonder if our idea of doing a test
> > > > migration as mentioned is not a good idea because of our
> > > > production Exch55 directory/store having to be modified as
a
> > > > result?
> > > >
> > > > When we did this analogous thing w/ ADMT for NT->AD
accounts
> > it
> > > > worked very differently... it didn't make any changes to
the
> > > > source so we could do a lot of test migrations to a test
> > domain
> > > > and that was very helpful in our learning/testing.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts on any/all of the above would be much
> > appreciated!
> > > >
> > > > -Rich
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Doug: "User account syntax correlation to email address"
- Previous message: Chris: "domain.local & ISP smarthost"
- In reply to: Charlotte Zinck [MSFT]: "Re: ADC Tool Step 3 - Resource Mailbox Wizard"
- Next in thread: Charlotte Zinck [MSFT]: "Re: ADC Tool Step 3 - Resource Mailbox Wizard"
- Reply: Charlotte Zinck [MSFT]: "Re: ADC Tool Step 3 - Resource Mailbox Wizard"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
