Re: 2003 AD R2 schema upgrade from Win 2000 Server?

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

Hi, Jorge.

No, I'm not doing this just for grins. The one R2 feature that I really need
on this domain is the changes in DFS. It should be really helpful for the
application that we run on the domain. But we can't implement the new DFS
until we have at least one R2 server up and running in each of the three
sites. So I thought I'd get the schema upgraded, and then tackle the task of
adding those servers. I don't have much choice, really. The production
schedule rules all. I have to get the domain ready to take on R2 DCs, and
then add them as the production schedule permits.

Makes me wistful about the good old days when you ran a big network with one
piece of big iron. Upgrades were pretty danged simple back them. I'm not a
professional IT guy, so the organizational requirements for this sort of
thing with Windows have me wondering why the vendors of this software choose
Windows as their platform. I know the development tools are outstanding. I
guess that's the answer. The guys who developed this software -- believe me
-- are not good developers. They need all the help they can get!

And so do I!

;-)

Thank you for your help.

"Jorge Silva" wrote:

My Opinion is... If you don't plan to use R2 features, don't upgrade the
schema to R2, you only need to upgrade the schema to R2 when you plan to use
R2 features.
--
I hope that the information above helps you.
Have a Nice day.

Jorge Silva
MCSE, MVP Directory Services
"jimmuh" <jimmuh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:01F705B7-74CF-43BD-B9DF-14F1F19081BE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks, Jorge. Yes, I had seen that message thread.

So, do you see any problem with me proceeding as I outlined?

I'm not intending to do any upgrade installations of R2 on any of the
machines. This domain was in sad, sad shape when I got it. I had to edit
AD
manually to take care of issues like DCs that had just been yanked out of
the
network. I changed the configuration of the domain slowly over time to do
my
best to provide redundant functionality. It is in perfect condition now,
with
no replication or DNS issues -- passing dcdiag, netdiag, and replmon
testing
with no failures or warnings whatsoever.

This is an actual production plant domain, and a downed server means a
site
stops producing -- not a popular option. We have two servers each at two
of
the sites, and only a single server at the third site. No test machines,
other than what I can jury rig in the way of virtual machines on my own
notebook computer.

With the history of the domain I want clean installations of R2 for each
of
the DCs. I'll be adding a sixth DC (2nd server at the site that only has
one
now). So I just want to upgrade the schema now from the W2KSP4 system I
was
talking about, then add the first R2 DC, then remove each of the other DCs
in
turn from the domain and clean install the OS on them before adding them
back.

The IT people here probably think I'm crazy for doing this, but their
servers can go down with very little effect on company operations (loss of
e-mail, network shares, etc.) -- and they do go down. None of my servers
has
ever gone down for other than a frank hardware failure, and those failures
are long in the past. If my servers go down, buildings become eerily
quiet,
and stuff stops coming off the production lines.

The company will not spend the money they should to provide a separate, or
at least a bolstered, infrastructure for the production domain. It shares
infrastructure with a bunch of sales reps and customer service reps who
actually get to run their own server -- with no training or oversight on
security settings! The company wouldn't even buy more than one production
server per site, or air conditioning for the rooms the servers were in --
until a hot day spelled the end of operations at one ofl the sites for a
couple of days.

If you've read all of this and can respond to that primary question, I
thank
you. I have no education in this field, other that what I've picked up on
my
own on the job in a couple of years. I appreciate any help I can get.

"Jorge Silva" wrote:

also have a look at the previous post "Windows 2003 R2 and SP2"

--
I hope that the information above helps you.
Have a Nice day.

Jorge Silva
MCSE, MVP Directory Services
"jimmuh" <jimmuh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:EC3D54D6-A232-4982-9916-38F0A67B8BFC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On second thought, I have seen nothing here that indicates that I have
to
do
the schema upgrades from the W2003SP2 machine. Paul and Jorge seem to
be
trying to remind me that the new R2 features can't be installed on the
older
W2KSP4 system. But, if I'm understanding it correctly, the AD schema
can
still be extended without doing it on the W2003SP2 DC. I can add the R2
features to other servers later on as the servers become available and
as
the
features are needed.

I have reasons for wanting to do this from the W2KSP4 box which is now
the
FSMO role holder. That single W2003SP2 system is the only DC and SQL
server
at its site. I don't want to have to disconnect it, thus bringing
production
to a stop at its site, in order to do the schema upgrades. Once I get
the
schema upgrades done I'll be able to add a second DC at that site
(running
W2003R2SP2), eliminating the risk of running a single server at that
site.
Then I'll be able to go on my merry way demoting each of the other
servers,
in turn, and doing clean installations of W2003R2SP2 on them, and then
adding
them back to the domain.

Does anyone see a problem with that plan?

"jimmuh" wrote:

Thanks. I'll do it that way then. I was just concerned because I saw a
post
earlier on in which someone stated that he had been unable to install
the
schema upgrades from a 2003 SP2 server. But it they're supposed to
work
from
SP1 and onward, I'll just hope that his was an isolated instance.

"Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" wrote:

What he is telling you is to upgrade to R2 you need to do it from a
DC
running Windows 2003 with SP1 or greater.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/912309

R2 features are only available on R2 installed machines.

--
Paul Bergson
MVP - Directory Services
MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT

http://www.pbbergs.com

Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.

"jimmuh" <jimmuh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6E694E2D-1737-4EE9-BAE4-DE9151D926E1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks for replying, Jorge. I know I'm being a bit dense, but I
want
to
get
this right. I'm no IT pro, but I'm in charge of a production
domain.

So, if I try to upgrade the schema from the Windows 2000 server
and
then
add
R2 servers they will not have the features of the new schema
available to
them? If so, then I should move the FSMO roles to the Windows
Server
2003
system? (It is at SP2.)

"Jorge Silva" wrote:

Hi
R2 is only available for W2k3 with SP1, you can apply on a mixed
environment
where you have 2000 and 2003 but R2 features can only be
installed
in a
server with w2k3SP1, and the R2 features are only available to
the
server.

--
I hope that the information above helps you.
Have a Nice day.

Jorge Silva
MCSE, MVP Directory Services
"jimmuh" <jimmuh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:08A351A6-3155-4F9A-B722-C63B1DD1FDD3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,

Question up front, partial background to follow:

In a domain with a mixed (2000 / 2003) DC complement, is it
okay
to
perform
the schema upgrade for R2 on a Windows 2000 server which is the
current
FSMO
role holder / PDC emulator?

I have an oddball production environment, as follows:

5 DCs located in three sites.
1 DC is Windows Server 2003, and all others are Windows 2000
Server
(all
standard).
The FSMO role holder / PDC emulator is one of the Windows 2000
Server
systems.
All DCs run SQL Server 2000 SP4 to serve production
applications
running
on
workstations.
All DCs do DNS.
All DCs are partners in DFS.
No Exchange Servers exist on the domain.
SFU running on 2 DCs.
FTP running on 2 DCs.

There is no lab. Yes, we apply all patches / updates / changes
to
a
live
production environment which must remain up and running 24/7.
If
the
servers
stop running the company's production equipment stops running.

When I applied the 2003 AD schema upgrades so that I could add
the
2003
DC
we saw an immediate and much-needed improvement in replication
behavior.
That
was done following a very long period during which I had to
clean
up AD
from
what had gone before I inherited the domain -- all sorts of
ridiculous
workaround for allowing users from other domains to use
resources
on
this
domain, improper removal of a DC, etc. The domain is, at long
last,
running
error-free. DCDIAG, NETDIAG, REPLMON testing is all perfect.

I am supposed to take these systems to Windows Server 2003 R2
and
add a
sixth DC., with 3 more to come early next year. I understand
that
I
should
apply another schema upgrade before adding any R2 systems. I
will
be
demoting
each DC in turn, removing it from the domain, doing a clean
installation
of
R2 SP2 (integrated), and then joining and promoting them again.

Yeah, I know it's crazy. Trust me when I tell you I have no
choice
but
to
operate the domain this way due to concerns about redundancy,
failure
of
inter-site communications, etc.







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 2003 AD R2 schema upgrade from Win 2000 Server?
    ... features to other servers later on as the servers become available and as the ... to a stop at its site, in order to do the schema upgrades. ... eliminating the risk of running a single server at that site. ... DCs located in three sites. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Re: 2003 AD R2 schema upgrade from Win 2000 Server?
    ... This is an actual production plant domain, and a downed server means a site ... "Jorge Silva" wrote: ... to a stop at its site, in order to do the schema upgrades. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Re: F8 ETA?
    ... I really like FC better than Ubuntu, and RHEL/WhiteBox/CentOS are just a little too slow to offer features. ... many production servers have a long upgrade requirement. ... it is a *server* not a *workstation*. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: 2003 AD R2 schema upgrade from Win 2000 Server?
    ... if I try to upgrade the schema from the Windows 2000 server and then ... DCs located in three sites. ... When I applied the 2003 AD schema upgrades so that I could add the 2003 ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Re: MS Exchange server on FreeBSD?
    ... And he surely knows what all of the features of Exchange ... Create a server platform that is modular ... Monopolies aren't necessarily bad, it's when they abuse that position ...
    (freebsd-questions)