Re: Complicated SBS Upgrade Issue by SuperGumby
SuperGumby
Wed Jan 31 18:20:22 CST 2007
I realise I may have not been direct enough but I believe your questions
have been answered.
Yes, you can install Exchange 2003 into your current environment. I do not
_think_ it requires the AD functional level to be raised but if you do so
take it only to 2000 native.
2003 DC's support all previous versions of AD, the existence of SBS2000
means the AD should not (cannot) be raised above 2000 Native until this, and
any other 2000 DC's, are removed. They also support mixed mode for NT
support.
If I assume $3000 worth of consulting fees (which gets a lot of my time,
particularly if you're talkin USbucks vs my poor AU$) there's a lot of
change out of 7-8K.
"JamesH" <JamesH@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E2951582-ED4B-4162-A710-973F6E3F704F@microsoft.com...
>I realize it may have been more costly (probably $7,000-8,000), but for
> performance, etc. we've decided to pay the difference and install
> applications on separate servers, slowly moving from SBS. We've had too
> many
> issues come up with rebooting because of email issues, and in addition we
> lose SQL, network printers, fax, etc.
>
> Can anyone answer some of the specific questions I've asked or point me in
> the right direction to find the answers?
>
> Thank you.
>
> "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" wrote:
>
>> From your description I would have considered upgrade to SBS2003 R2 and
>> maybe then 'Transitioning' the server, but nothing so far really
>> indicates
>> the move away from SBS is desirable.
>>
>> I'm not sure of Exchange 2003's minimum AD functional level requirements,
>> mixed mode _may_ be OK, but from the sounds of things there are no
>> reasons
>> not to raise the functional level to 2000 native, if it is necessary.
>>
>> I need to point out. It seems your current plan is going to cost more
>> than
>> possible alternatives, quite likely significantly more.
>>
>> "JamesH" <JamesH@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:399998C7-FC35-4A7C-AC07-3BD4FD84A096@microsoft.com...
>> >I think we are currently at Windows 2000 Mixed Mode AD. Should I change
>> >this
>> > native mode? Is it as simple as changing it in the AD? I also read
>> > that
>> > it
>> > is recommended to have all DC's be a GC? Can one of the 2003 Servers
>> > be
>> > promoted to DC in a 2000 Native Mode AD, along side SBS2000? How would
>> > I
>> > upgrade to 2003 Native or Mixed AD?
>> >
>> > As far as upgrading to Exchange 2003, we feel we have exceeded the
>> > limitations of SBS. We are growing to 3 different sites and have
>> > outgrown
>> > the hardware of our current SBS server, as well as the 16 GB store
>> > limit,
>> > performance was extremely slow, no RAID (Scary). So we are looking to
>> > break
>> > up the Applications, when we need to perform maintenance, or encounter
>> > issues, as we have, all applications are down. So we are looking to
>> > segregate the applications even if it is an additional cost. We've
>> > already
>> > purchased and implemented a SQL 2005 Server and it has been great. We
>> > are
>> > looking to do the same with Exchange.
>> >
>> > So as far as installing Exchange 2003 in our current environment, would
>> > we
>> > just do a standard installation of Exchange? Forestprep, domainprep,
>> > install,
>> > migrate mailboxes, uninstall Exchange from SBS 2000?
>> >
>> > "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" wrote:
>> >
>> >> All versions of SBS have supported additional DC's 'out of the box',
>> >> no
>> >> reg
>> >> hack or special AD modification is required.
>> >>
>> >> Don't beat yourself up over it though, it is one of the most
>> >> misunderstood
>> >> areas of SBS. SBS (2000/2003) must hold all FSMO roles but additional
>> >> DC's
>> >> are allowed.
>> >>
>> >> What's the motivation for Exchange 2003? Even if using one of your
>> >> existing
>> >> servers as base OS you are looking at significant cost to move to
>> >> Exchange
>> >> 2003 Standard (non-SBS). If you moved to SBS2003 you would get
>> >> Exchange
>> >> 2003
>> >> Standard version at a significantly lower cost. Moving to the non-SBS
>> >> version requires the Exchange Server license and CALs for all users,
>> >> your
>> >> existing SBS CALs do not cover an additional Exchange.
>> >>
>> >> Note that if you moved to SBS2003 R2 and _also_ still required an
>> >> additional
>> >> Exchange server the 'expanded CAL rights' introduced in R2 would cover
>> >> access to the additional Exchange box.
>> >>
>> >> If you keep your existing SBS2000 the AD can be at a maximum
>> >> functional
>> >> level of 'Windows 2000 Native'. Exchange 2003 works fine in an AD at
>> >> this
>> >> functional level (it is the normal functional level for SBS 2003).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "JamesH" <JamesH@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:136B2563-B4D0-4C70-A1B9-EC08ACF84AF6@microsoft.com...
>> >> > We currently have a SBS 2000 installation, (1) Windows 2000, (2)
>> >> > Windows
>> >> > 2003
>> >> > Std servers. The SBS 2000 and Windows 2000 servers are both DC's,
>> >> > which
>> >> > I'm
>> >> > not sure how this happened, because from all documentation it can't.
>> >> > The
>> >> > previous admin stated he worked with MS Support and was able to
>> >> > modify
>> >> > the
>> >> > registry or AD or whatever to allow this second DC.
>> >> >
>> >> > The question is we are upgrading to Exchange 2003 on a Windows Std
>> >> > 2003
>> >> > box
>> >> > and am wondering if I install Exchange on the 2003 box as a member
>> >> > server
>> >> > how
>> >> > the forstprep and domainprep for Exchange will affect our current
>> >> > structure?
>> >> > Especially with the two DC's one being SBS.
>> >> >
>> >> > The second issue I'm concerned with is the AD upgrade from 2000 to
>> >> > 2003.
>> >> > Should I upgrade the AD and promote a 2003 box to DC before or after
>> >> > the
>> >> > Exchange installation?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thirdly, I don't have a test environment to perform any such
>> >> > upgrades
>> >> > on.
>> >> > Should this be a major concern? If so what is the best way to
>> >> > create
>> >> > one?
>> >> >
>> >> > Please advise, any help would be greatly appreciated.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>