RM – Replacing the Forest Root Server

[MattGibson]

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

[FN-GM]

I would be more bothered about him causing role backs in AD.

[NeoPlosive]

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.

[Sylv3r]

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.

[kmount]

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.

[Tallwood_6]

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 £

[rusty155]

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:eek: At £750-800 a day I decided against it! We had a few niggles to begin with but everything is fine now.

[Michael]

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.

[Hightower]

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.

[Sylv3r]

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.

[Hightower]

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

[MattGibson]

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 !

[Michael]

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.