|
|
|
date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:45:43 -0800,
group: microsoft.public.exchange2000.active.directory.integration
back
Re: Upgrading W2k running Exchange 2003 to W2k3 Domain
Here is the reason for not demoting DCs with Exchange server installed:
"You can run Exchange Server 2003 on either a member server or on a domain
controller. After you install Exchange Server 2003 on a server, do not
change the role of the server. For example, if you install Exchange Server
2003 on a member server, do not use the Dcpromo tool to promote the server
to a domain controller. Or, if you install Exchange Server 2003 on a domain
controller, do not use the Dcpromo tool to demote the server to a member
server. Changing the role of a server after you install Exchange Server 2003
may result in loss of some Exchange functionality and is not supported.
-source: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/822179
--
Regards,
Sasa Milovanovic
MCSE:Messaging, VCP
sasa.milovanovic(at)exchangemaster.net
"Sanford Whiteman" wrote in message
news:d05ju116qoaf7o5bdt4uf9ooehk59nmp0p@4ax.com...
> >Does running adprep have any effect on Exchange 2003?
>
> See the KB article referred to by Sasa.
>
>>When I have both new boxes up and handling AD operations, I wan't the
>>Exchange box to be dedicated. How do I remove the AD role from the
>>Exchange
>>box?
>
> Here I differ with Sasa. I'm not aware of any reason that you can't
> move the FSMO roles to your new box, then DCPROMO the Exchange box
> down to a member server -- the traditional steps you would use when
> reverting any DC to a member server. No necessity for a bare-metal
> reinstall that I can see.
>
>>Would you recommend upgrading the OS on the Exchange box to W2k3?
>
> Again, I wouldn't have any compunction about doing such an in-place
> upgrade and avoiding needless downtime. If you should have some
> unforseeable issue due to hardware drivers or whatnot, well, you
> already have a backup ready, so you could then go with Plan B and
> install Win2K3, then reinstall Exchange with the /disasterrecovery
> switch.
>
> --Sandy
date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:30:33 +0100
author: Sasa Milovanovic sasa.milovanovic(at)exchangemaster.net
Re: Upgrading W2k running Exchange 2003 to W2k3 Domain
>The point is that this scenario is not supported by Microsoft, therefore in
>case something goes wrong with demotion you can forget on PSS support
True enough, if you're into that sort of thing. :) Yet if something
goes wrong with the demotion, as I mentioned to the other poster, you
must have a full backup around anyway, so you've wasted almost _no_
time -- and, possibly, gained a _ton_ of time relative to the simply
ridiculous task of, for all intents and purposes, reinstalling your
entire AD domain and Exchange organization just to get the stupid
Exchange server out of the AD role that it shouldn't be taxed with. Of
course, doing nothing is another option, but how fun is that?
In addition to having done this on two production servers in the past,
I did more tests in my lab tonight on my Windows 2000/Exchange 2003
scratch boxes. An LDAP and registry comparison showed no substantive
differences in appearance or operation between an Exchange server
machine that had previously been a DC and FSMO role holder (the first
DC in the domain), then neatly demoted and its roles transferred to a
new DC, and an Exchange server installed on the exact same OS
installation that had only ever been a member server (I use VMs,
making it easy to start afresh).
It is definitely possible that Microsoft does not support this
currently workable procedure because in the future, they plan to make
it _technically_ impossible in the future due to a deeper tie-in
between the DC and Exchange, and they don't want admins to get used to
its availability. I can understand that to a degree. But the
currently offered "alternative" is so labor-intensive as to be
unacceptable. That's enough to drive people to another platform, if
they're forced to make a choice. It's sort of like having refused to
consider third-party brick-level backups before the Recovery Storage
Group was introduced. Microsoft didn't support them, with relatively
good reason. But the alternative was even more unacceptable, to my
mind. I think we encounter the same decision points in a lot of parts
of the industry, where "official" positions might serve to ward people
away from powerful technology.
I suppose the other path one could take is effectively disabling the
DC from day-to-day use using LDAPSrvPriority and controlled DDNS
publication, stuff like that. But you'll always have the nagging
feeling that your systems are out of your control, and I sympathize
(having done this same procedure myself for a client) with the desire
to dedicate machines to specific, well-used services, with nothing
dormant that you then have to document and rationalize.
--Sandy
date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 03:38:52 -0500
author: Sanford Whiteman
|
|
