+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13
Wireless Networks Thread, RM – Replacing the Forest Root Server in Technical; ...
  1. #1
    MattGibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Epsom
    Posts
    176
    Thank Post
    24
    Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    16

    Question RM – Replacing the Forest Root Server

    Hi Everyone, Just wanted to see what your views are on this.

    Today the engineer turned up to decommission our Forest Root server to the new but rather than doing a fresh install he got out his external drive and used Symantec Backup to take a snapshot of the system and transferred this to the new. (he’s coming back tomorrow to finish off)

    My issue is that he upgraded to OS from Win2K to 2003, so basically sitting on top of our old OS with legacy files just sitting around. Does this replicate any problems we had on our old server to the new……? (if any)

    I’ve always preferred to do a fresh install as I tend to find an upgrade sitting on an old OS causes slower performance.

    Is this RM purely just cutting corners or is this the way to do this?

    Cheers
    Matt

  2. #2

    FN-GM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,308
    Thank Post
    901
    Thanked 1,797 Times in 1,548 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    466
    I would be more bothered about him causing role backs in AD.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    197
    Thank Post
    7
    Thanked 32 Times in 18 Posts
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by MattGibson View Post
    Hi Everyone, Just wanted to see what your views are on this.

    Today the engineer turned up to decommission our Forest Root server to the new but rather than doing a fresh install he got out his external drive and used Symantec Backup to take a snapshot of the system and transferred this to the new. (he’s coming back tomorrow to finish off)

    My issue is that he upgraded to OS from Win2K to 2003, so basically sitting on top of our old OS with legacy files just sitting around. Does this replicate any problems we had on our old server to the new……? (if any)

    I’ve always preferred to do a fresh install as I tend to find an upgrade sitting on an old OS causes slower performance.

    Is this RM purely just cutting corners or is this the way to do this?

    Cheers
    Matt
    We did a 2k to 2k3 upgrade at Christmas.

    While I wasn't there - I get the impression this is the way ours went down.

    We've had a few issues with policies and the printer credits database (which I resolved today) but for now we're keeping our users on the 2nd and 3rd DC's and just watching it.

  4. #4

    Sylv3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Co. Durham
    Posts
    3,254
    Thank Post
    377
    Thanked 386 Times in 342 Posts
    Rep Power
    149
    They did the same for us here as well. I would have much preferred a new fresh install of Windows 2003 and then move the useres across.

    However, Its been setup here for around 16 months and we've had no issues that have come from this upgrade.

  5. #5


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    4,701
    Thank Post
    352
    Thanked 805 Times in 720 Posts
    Rep Power
    348
    They did it for us and it broke into a million pieces and ended up with a dc unit insertion and FSMO seizing etc. - The end result was their Virus Protect had legacy issues brought over from the 2k server.

    A year on and we still have odd issues but nothing too dramatic.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    572
    Thank Post
    27
    Thanked 80 Times in 69 Posts
    Rep Power
    30
    This seems to be standard practice for RM, we went through the same procedure just over a year ago and it took well over the 2 days allocated for us the engineer to get the box back up and operational again. God knows why they have to go about it this way, presumably if you asked they would do a migration to a clean server for extra £

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    111
    Thank Post
    2
    Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
    Rep Power
    18
    We went through the same process a couple of years ago as well when replacing our Forest Root. I questioned it at the time and was told that is standard RM practice. If you push, they will do a fresh install but I was told it would add another 2-3 days to the engineer time needed At £750-800 a day I decided against it! We had a few niggles to begin with but everything is fine now.

  8. #8

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,297
    Thank Post
    242
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 1,263 Posts
    Rep Power
    344
    I've upgraded vanilla 2000 Server DC to 2003 Server a few times. It saves a lot of time and in my experience created no problems. However if a new server was being purchased, then all DC roles need to be transferred properly. This does take considerably longer as you need to make sure replication has completed successfully.

  9. #9

    Hightower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cloud 9
    Posts
    4,920
    Thank Post
    494
    Thanked 690 Times in 444 Posts
    Rep Power
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylv3r View Post
    They did the same for us here as well. I would have much preferred a new fresh install of Windows 2003 and then move the useres across.

    However, Its been setup here for around 16 months and we've had no issues that have come from this upgrade.
    Don't the LEA do this where we are? I'm sure when this has been done in the past we used them rather then RM - no complaints.

  10. #10

    Sylv3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Co. Durham
    Posts
    3,254
    Thank Post
    377
    Thanked 386 Times in 342 Posts
    Rep Power
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Hightower View Post
    Don't the LEA do this where we are? I'm sure when this has been done in the past we used them rather then RM - no complaints.
    Not sure, I decided to go down the RM route for the commissioning, They was very little difference in cost.

  11. #11

    Hightower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cloud 9
    Posts
    4,920
    Thank Post
    494
    Thanked 690 Times in 444 Posts
    Rep Power
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylv3r View Post
    Not sure, I decided to go down the RM route for the commissioning, They was very little difference in cost.
    Fair enough

    I was more thinking about if something goes wrong they are closer and more likely to sort it quicker. But in fairness, they'd probably just escalate the call to RM anyways

  12. #12
    MattGibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Epsom
    Posts
    176
    Thank Post
    24
    Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    16

    Thumbs down

    Well i'm glad everyone else has had the same treatment. I guess they would do a clean install but for extra money.

    I personally think its the wrong way of doing this process, Why have I paid RM to come in and run Symantec Backup Exec when I could have done it myself LOL!

    I've come to the conclusion it's cutting corners and they're just saving some dosh.

    I'll let you know the out come !

  13. #13

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,297
    Thank Post
    242
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 1,263 Posts
    Rep Power
    344
    I personally think its the wrong way of doing this process, Why have I paid RM to come in and run Symantec Backup Exec when I could have done it myself LOL!
    If you have the skills and expertise to manage a Windows network, then you're right, you probably don't need RM to do things for you, however it's a catch22 situation really. Your establishment have taken the decision to invest in an RM network and RM do, do things slightly differently at times to a vanilla network; so it probably is just as well to let them do it.

    If it was a standard vanilla network then things would be different. You have a clear plan what steps are required to migrate your domain controller or upgrade it, whichever you choose. Microsoft do officially support 2000 Server > 2003 Server upgrades, but they do insist you check application and driver compatibility in addition to making a full backup of your existing setup.



SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. RM Easylink running on Vista? Forest root issues!
    By reggiep in forum Network and Classroom Management
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 20th May 2009, 12:15 AM
  2. Server 2008 AD issue across forest trust with Server 2003 R2 AD
    By dhess1013 in forum Windows Server 2008
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11th October 2008, 11:00 AM
  3. Forest Root concerns
    By u8dmtm in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13th December 2006, 12:43 PM
  4. Now they want my server root password.
    By tickmike in forum General Chat
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10th September 2006, 12:23 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 27th August 2006, 09:34 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •