IT Employment

General discussion


Exchange interchange (continued)

By discussion ·
Exchange admins, use this discussion to consult with other Exchange admins, post your questions, offer your comments on the Exchange e-newsletter, or make suggestions about future tips.

If you'd like to check out the previous Exchange discussions, here are the links:


If you're not subscribed to the Exchange e-newsletter, you can check it out here, under Technical Tips:

* When pasting these links into your browser, remember to remove any spaces.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Migration/upgrade methods

by rsfuller2007 In reply to Exchange interchange (con ...

All of our servers & workstations are on W2K with Active Directory except our one NT 4.0 Exchange 5.5 server. I am thinking we will install W2K on a separate server, rename it to the current email server, and move the directory and information store into it. If this works we will run it for awhile and then upgrade to Exchange 2000 or go to Exchange 2003 (I have the beta copy). When we do this I am apprehensive about installing the Active Directory connectors. Could anyone share their experiences with this? Would you move to 2000 or just go to 2003 right away? Any feedback is most appreciated.

Collapse -


by ebailey In reply to Migration/upgrade methods

I would skip Exchange 2000 and go to 2003 on server 2003. As long as Active D is working, exmerge the mailboxes and public folders off the old server and exmerge them back in. Do a full clean install of the OS and Exchange. I am migrating from Exchange 2000 to 2003 1st quarter next year.

Collapse -

Be Careful

by Trib In reply to Migration/upgrade methods

I wouldn't suggest renaming your server. I would do a fresh install of both Exchange 2K and windows 2K then Migrate the users over that way you have a failsafe in case of problems and you have time to ramp up your skill set. Don't forget the store size limit on exchange standard. The ADC's are easy enough to do, go here for details Microsoft Knowledge Base Article ? 301036. With proper preparation anything is easy to do people run into problems when they don?t investigate all angles of an issue so study up and plan first.

Collapse -

Introduce the new server

by ghassan In reply to Migration/upgrade methods

hmmm, since you have plans to upgrade to e2k03 and win2k03 introduce the new hardware to the new organization. As long as it is a member win2k03 member server, you can migrate your users to the new server. Make sure that the new server is sized for win2k03 and e2k03. When you migrate all users and connectors to the new server, you can retire the old server. Planning for e2k03 is more complex. However, since you already have AD in place, when you are ready, you can can do inplace upgrade to e2k and inplace upgrade to e2k03. this is the simplest way. you don't have to worry about ca and such.
good luck

Collapse -

ADC's and their place in W2K and E2K Migrations

by gmcoburn In reply to Migration/upgrade methods

First, an important note. Use the ADC from Exchange 2000 Service Pack 3, as it is the most current and fixes quite a few bugs.

Active Directory Connectors are used to sync your Active Directory with the current Exchange 5.5 directory, allowing either one way or two way connections.

For example, if you had a two way connection agreement this would allow you to make changes in the properties of the User using AD Users and Computers, and these changes then sync down to the Exchange 5.5 properties. The same applies if you made changes in the Exchange 5.5 directory, it would go back to AD. I found this most useful, as I used a directory import in Ex5.5 to ensure that user?s details were correct before I migrated to W2K, so that when they linked, all user info contained in the Exchange Directory was automatically populated into AD.

So, ADC's are not strictly a part of an Exchange migration/upgrade, but more of a middle step between W2K migration and Exchange migration.

So, you already have a W2K AD. Half of the hard work is already done. You just need to install the ADC onto a domain controller, and point it at your Ex5.5 server, and the appropriate container (OU) of your AD, and you are away.

Don't forget to let the schema changes that the ADC puts in place replicated before you start applying /forestprep and /domainprep during Exchange 2000 installation.

I would recommend, if you had the budget/hardware etc, of setting a up a new server, and upon installing Exchange 2000, join your existing 5.5 site. I used third party tools from Quest Software to then migrated mailboxes form the old 5.5 server to the new 2000 server. It even took all the rules, out of office etc, which was great. And as the new server is part of the same 5.5 "site", the users Outlook profiles get automatically updated to point at the new server.

Unfortunately, I do not think that the method you described of moving the info stores from a 5.5 server directly to a E2K server will work, as the databases go through an upgrade process that changes it use for E2K.

Collapse -

RE: Migration/upgrade methods

by Dejan Foro In reply to Migration/upgrade methods

Do it in this way:
1) Get a new server and install Windows 2000 and make it a member of the domain in which Exchange 5.5. resides.
2) Than install Exchange 2000 Server into the Existing Exchange 5.5 organization.
3) By using Move mailbox in system Manager move user mailboxes from the old Exchange 5.5 to the new Exchange 2000 server
4) Rehome public folders to new Exchange 2000 Server
5) Remove the old Exchange 5.5. server as described in TechNet Knowledge base article

The following TechNet Knowledge base articles will give you valuable information:
- 284148 XADM: How to Remove the Last Exchange Server 5.5 Computer from Exchange 2000 Administrative Group
- 152959 XADM: How to Remove the First Exchange Server in a Site
- 288150 XADM: How to Rehome Public Folders in Exchange 2000

Do not try with renaming. I have done it once in the past and did it by Microsoft KB article but later the old name was still appearing and we had some replication and connection problems, because the server name wasn't changed in all places where it was necessary.

Also moving storages is much more complicated and you will have a long interruption in service especially if this server which handles incoming mail. In scenario I described there is no interruption.

Since your network is already a Windows 2000 AD I would not go to 2003 platform. You would just additionally complicate your migration. Unless you specifically need Outlook Mobile Access Support in Exchange 2003 I would recommend you to keep with 2000 platform. The reasons are the following:

- Training and exam resources are available
- Windows 2000 is SP4 and Exchange 2000 is SP3 therefore stabilized and more "mature" products
- There is a lot of technical knowledge and information in TechNet knowledge base about potential problems and how to resolve them
- More 3rd party applications available for 2000 platform ? although Exchange 2003 is out many 3rd party solution providers still didn't upgrade their products to support Exchange 2003 (admin and migration tools, antivirus and filtering software, backup ?. )


Dejan Foro
Lead Architect
Microsoft Gold Certified Partner
Ivana ?ibla 15
10020 Zagreb
mobile: +385 ** 6500 246
phone: +385 1 6500 246

Collapse -

Do I have to have Active Directory?

by GunnerSixz In reply to RE: Migration/upgrade met ...

I still have a NT 4 Domain with exchange servers running 5.5. I also have win 2000 servers running as member servers. Can I introduce a Windows 2000 server with exchange 2000 to the site? Is that ok?
or Do I need to have Active directory installed and my pdc's upgraded to win 2000 running in mixed mode? Any help would be appreciated.

Collapse -

RE: Do I have to have Active Directory?

by Dejan Foro In reply to Do I have to have Active ...

Yes, you must have Active Directory. You can not install Exchange 2000 without AD at all.

The reason is in architecture differences between Exchange 5.5. and Exchange 2000.
Exchange 5.5 had its own directory separate from Windows account database and you had to administer user information in 2 places.

Exchange 2000 does not have a separate directory. It stores user information in Windows 2000 AD. During setup of Exchange 2000, classes and attributes are added to Active Directory so Exchange can store and retrieve information from it. It simplifies administration a lot, but therefore, you must have Active Directory in place and running in order to install and use Exchange 2000.

Dejan Foro

Collapse -


by GunnerSixz In reply to RE: Do I have to have Act ...

I appreciate you taking the time to explain.

Collapse -

Exchange 2003 , a superior product to E2K

by trashy In reply to RE: Migration/upgrade met ...

I've been running the beta 2 version for over 9 months, and it's more stable and easier to work with that E2K could ever hope to be. Add in the RBL capability, snapshot backups on W2K3, the Recovery Storage Group that eliminates the need to build a recovery forest/server,Kerberos authentication between FE/BE servers, improved OWA features and connectivity, connection to the Exchange server with Outlook 2003 without a VPN connection using RPC over HTTP/HTTPS,and improved clustering ability, along with better migration tools natively built in, and that argument just doesn't hold up. Trend Micro, has already built AV software for it. And SP4 for Windows, from what I can see on the message boards, has broken almost as much as it fixed. If you can afford it, do it. At the very least, check it out in your test environment. I know you'll be pleased, I certainly have been.

David Wilhoit
Exchange/Active Directory Migration Specialist

Related Discussions

Related Forums