Re: SBS Upgrade Swing or not to Swing?
- From: "Stacemen" <staceman3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Jan 2007 07:41:54 -0800
Anna, I am glad I am not the only one who considers "Starting from
scratch" as well. I have had clients of say, 10 users, each without
alot of customization and needs, where I just installed a brand new
server and migrated data and was more comfortable doing it that way,
especially if I did not set up the server orignally. I am about to buy
a new server for my home and installing R2 on it. I have tweaked my R1
so much over the years as I have used it as a test machine in many
different ways, that I feel much more comfortable just installing R2,
setting up new users (there are only 2 :) ) and migrating the data
over. Everything else I prefer to set up from scratch. The only
person I have to deal with regarding down time is my wife, and she is
not paying me, so it makes it A LITTLE easier...down too long and I
incur her wrath..but other than that, I am ok. Anyway, good luck with
the Swing and let us know how it goes.
On Jan 16, 2:51 pm, "Anna Clark" <anna.clark(remove this)@verizon.net>
wrote:
There are two different and conflicting goals at work here. The in place
upgrade on the same hardware is easy, simple, and quick, by comparison to
anything else. However, it leaves you with an installation that will not
properly do a bare metal restore, because your short file names don't match
up with the long file names in the mft and related tables. So far as I
know, (please correct this misconception if it is one) this flaw in Windows
Server 2000 carries forward to an in place upgrade to Server 2003
On the other hand the "swing" method will give you a clean install of SBS
(or Windows Server), requiring only the steps outlined in the SwingIT kit.
You still have to run the install, and you still are entitled to use the
upgrade license and media. It is slightly more work and a bit more expense.
On some SBS installations where I did not like the naming conventions and
where there are less than X users (my tolerance for pain at the time of the
upgrade), I have been known to start all over from "scratch".
When I have to use the same hardware I would introduce new drives if at all
possible. We would hope that this system will last 3 to 5 years, and if the
drives are already 3 to 5 years old they are probably beginning to approach
their point on the bell curve. Also, if the installation fails, I can just
put the old drives back and begin anew another time.
It seem to me that this is one of those subjects about which everyone will
have an opinion, and that every opinion will be correct in some
circumstance. I will admit to never having done the MS admt method, simply
because I can't see that it offers anything not covered by swing and is a
whole lot more painful. If I am going to suffer from that much pain I
would rather do it "from scratch".
--
Regards:
Anna Clark
-----
Please do post the conclusion or solution
to your issue so that others may benefit.
"Joel Robinson" <j...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:4a259$45ad2cca$cef8884e$19237@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I was discussing an inplace with a PSS business-down support person who
claimed that an inplace is NOT SUPPORTED by ms.
I challenged him to provide me with any written proof of the statement and
referred him to existing MS documents to the contrary. He never backed up
his claims.
With this degree of misinformation, no wonder people are using complex
procedures to do what should be a simple update.
Joel in Toronto
"Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]" <gwdib...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote inmessage
news:umGLdKaOHHA.1240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxdocumentation
I'll say something that many others, including most of the MVPs, will
disagree with. If you have a properly functioning SBS 2000 and want to
upgrade to SBS 2003 on the same hardware, I'd do an in-place upgrade
rather than a swing to same hardware. You'll have more user down time
than you do with a swing migration, but if you read all the
and prepare properly, it should be a simpler process.
state -This does not apply to servers that are acting up or in an unknown
in that case, I'd Swing.
not"JEC" <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uPgsCEaOHHA.4604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I tried to Swing once from 2000 to 2003 on the same hardware and I am
sure I recommend it. I never made it work and ended up doing it the hard
way.
I have never tried it to new hardware but from my experience I believe
that it would work without any problem.
YMMV
message"John Bouley" <spamjabou...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:e%23NPEqZOHHA.4992@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I will be attempting another SBS 2000 upgrade to SBS2003 R2. The last
time I did a similar upgrade was a couple of years ago and I used the
"Microsoft" way. I remember the time involved... took 10 hours on a
Saturday and 4 hours of cleanup on Monday. This was a small office with
10 clients but it worked reasonably well. I have heard of the "Swing"
method but have been reluctant to try since it is not the "Microsoft"
official way. Two questions:
1. Any testimonials one way or the other for the Swing method?
it2. If there is a problem with the new server and Microsoft finds out
was upgraded using Swing will this cause a problem?
Thanks,
John- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
.
- References:
- SBS Upgrade Swing or not to Swing?
- From: John Bouley
- Re: SBS Upgrade Swing or not to Swing?
- From: JEC
- Re: SBS Upgrade Swing or not to Swing?
- From: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]
- Re: SBS Upgrade Swing or not to Swing?
- From: Joel Robinson
- Re: SBS Upgrade Swing or not to Swing?
- From: Anna Clark
- SBS Upgrade Swing or not to Swing?
- Prev by Date: Re: Locally logged two users on windows.
- Next by Date: Re: Local Admin user removed from Administrator group
- Previous by thread: Re: SBS Upgrade Swing or not to Swing?
- Next by thread: Re: SBS Upgrade Swing or not to Swing?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
