Re: In-place upgrade vs migration to Windows 2003
- From: "a4062224" <a4062224@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:41:59 -0700
Yes, for the foreseeable future, ALL NT BDC's will remain Windows Nt until
they are replaced with W2003. To make a sceanerio less detailed, my collegue
is under the impression that by using 3rd party (Quest) software that we
should be able to create a target domain and migrate the computers and users
to "new" domain. I told him that is true IF we were going to totally revamp
or existing domain with new domain name, DNS, netbios etc. His concern is
with the multiple server reloads that we will need to go though since our
initial server will be affected by the 4gb partition limitation since it was
previously an upgraded Windows NT BDC. His fear is that something will go
wrong in the future with the AD. Your thoughts? I fear that this is going
to turn into a pisssing contest before its over.
"Danny Sanders" wrote:
> I would say the determining factor would be if you wanted to keep your NT
> BDCs as NT BDCs in the Win2k3 domain. If you want to keep them you should
> upgrade. ADMT requires the AD domain be in Win 2k native mode or better. Win
> 2k native mode does not support replication between AD DCs and NT 4.0 BDCs.
>
> If not, I haven't seen anything in your description that would force you one
> way or the other.
>
> My personal preference is to upgrade.
>
>
> hth
> DDS W 2k MVP MCSE
>
> "a4062224" <a4062224@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:D2CD5F27-5621-4886-91F5-B6808F7410E5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > hich would be the preferred route if we were want to upgrade to Windows
> > 2003.
> > We are a single domain so we are not consolidating domains or merging
> > additional domains into a single domain. We have a mix of 9x, NT, 2000,
> > and
> > XP clients. Our BDC's are Windows NT. While I believe that an in-place
> > upgrade is the best route, my collegue and I have a disageement. He says
> > create a new "domain" and migrate users to the new AD structure and then
> > rename back to old domain. My plan, which involves a series of steps is
> > more
> > gradual and defined. My proposal is to take "newserver1" and load that as
> > a
> > BDC. Take BDC promote to PDC and do a upgrade to Windows2003. Because
> > this
> > server was once a NT server there is 4gb limitation of the system
> > partition
> > so this will only be a staging server at the momment. Take newserv2 and
> > load
> > Windows2003 according to corp. requirements. Once this server is up and
> > operational do a DCPromo so that newserver2 is now the AD Controller.
> > Reload
> > newserver1, creating larger partitions to meet corporate requirments and
> > then
> > do a final DCPromo to this server so that Newserver1 finally becomes the
> > AD
> > controller and Newserver 2 is a Windows 2003 member server.
> > Good plan? Previous PDC now BDC will continue to run DHCP and WINS until
> > these services are moved to new AD Controller. We are currently running
> > Std.
> > DNS on Windows 2000 member server and will migrate to AD DNS at a later
> > date
> > in the future.
>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: In-place upgrade vs migration to Windows 2003
- From: Danny Sanders
- Re: In-place upgrade vs migration to Windows 2003
- References:
- In-place upgrade vs migration to Windows 2003
- From: a4062224
- Re: In-place upgrade vs migration to Windows 2003
- From: Danny Sanders
- In-place upgrade vs migration to Windows 2003
- Prev by Date: Re: In-place upgrade vs migration to Windows 2003
- Next by Date: print migrator 3.1 error
- Previous by thread: Re: In-place upgrade vs migration to Windows 2003
- Next by thread: Re: In-place upgrade vs migration to Windows 2003
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
