General discussion

All Comments

  • Author
    • #2739939

      Migration/upgrade methods

      by rsfuller2007 ·

      In reply to Exchange interchange (continued)

      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.

      • #2738663


        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.

      • #2738656

        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.

      • #2738536

        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

      • #2738430

        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.

      • #2738413

        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
        MCP, MCP+I, MCSE NT40, MCSE+I, MCSE 2000
        Lead Architect
        Microsoft Gold Certified Partner
        Ivana ?ibla 15
        10020 Zagreb
        mobile: +385 91 6500 246
        phone: +385 1 6500 246

        • #3542582

          Do I have to have Active Directory?

          by gunnersixz ·

          In reply to RE: Migration/upgrade methods

          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.

        • #3542576

          RE: Do I have to have Active Directory?

          by dejan foro ·

          In reply to Do I have to have Active Directory?

          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
          MCP, MCP+I, MCSE NT4.0, MCSE+I, MCSE 2000

        • #3542572


          by gunnersixz ·

          In reply to RE: Do I have to have Active Directory?

          I appreciate you taking the time to explain.

        • #3543342

          Exchange 2003 , a superior product to E2K

          by trashy ·

          In reply to RE: Migration/upgrade methods

          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
          MCSE CCNA

        • #2747148

          Exchange 2000 or Exchange 2003

          by dejan foro ·

          In reply to Exchange 2003 , a superior product to E2K

          I’ve been also testing Exchange 2003 since beta 2. At the moment, I am actually deploying it at the one of our major clients, The Croatian Railways. Exchange 2003 as a product seems working OK. We tested it in lab and including some more advanced scenario like having a back-end front-end configuration with several front-end servers configured in a load balancing cluster. It certainly has some attractive new features and after all Exchange has reached version 6.5 which should give us some additional confidence into Exchange as a stable and mature product.

          But testing a product at home or in a lab environment, and implementation of a new system into an existing production environment is something completely different. The decision whether to move to the latest technology or not, should be not based only on the new features of the servers itself, but also on the existing environment, actual client needs and costs.

          And, surprisingly, going to the latest version isn’t always the best solution. Why? Simply because, your client might not need all of those functionalities or you can get those functionalities in another more simple way at much lower costs.

          Let me walk you through a common scenario: A client has 500 computers on many locations – Win2000/Office2000 workstations and let’s say 5 Win2000/Exchange2000 servers with Norton Antivirus for Exchange 2.5., Veritas Backup Exec 8.6. Client’s network is connected to Internet through an ISA server. And you would like to get functionalities like RBL and RPC over HTTP mentioned in the above article.

          For those who might not be familiar with these acronyms a short explanation:

          RBL ?V Real time block list is a service which provides your Exchange server with list of “bad guys” ?V servers known to be used by spammers and if your Exchange server finds it on that list it refuses to communicate with it.

          RPC over HTTP. Native Outlook client uses RPC to connect to Exchange server. RPC connects to port 135 and then negotiates a random port, and continues to work on that port over 1024 (this is called dynamic port allocation).This works fine until you get of the local network. If you are on a business trip and want to connect to your Exchange server you run into a problem: a firewall. Most firewalls don’t support dynamic port allocation and even if you have one that does support this, with many connected users this means many open ports on your firewall and that of course is a very high risk these days. This can be avoided by implementing a VPN ?V Virtual Private Networks but this also often requires knowledge and additional hardware or software, which Admins in small companies usually doesn’t have. RPC over HTTP is a mechanism that “packs” RPC traffic into HTTP which uses a fixed port 80 for web access and therefore is almost always opened on firewalls.

          What they don’t tell you, is that, you must have WinXP+SP1+patch and Outlook 2003 on client side and Exchange 2003 on the server side in order to use RPC over HTTP.

          Applied on the above mentioned example your list of expenses would look like this:

          500 Windows 2000 to WinXP upgrade licenses
          500 Office2000 to Office 2003 upgrade licenses
          5 server Windows 2000 to Windows 2003 upgrade licenses
          5 server upgrade licenses for Exchange 2003
          500 Client Access upgrade licenses for Windows
          500 Client Access licenses for Exchange
          5 upgrade licenses for Norton antivirus for Exchange
          5 upgrade licenses for Veritas BackupExec
          +huge cost of manpower needed for upgrading all of these
          +cost of downtime while upgrading
          +cost of training and lost productivity while users get familiar with new software


          You can stay on existing environment, and
          – replace your Norton Antivirus for Exchange with a newer version 4.0 which brings RBL functionalities and spam filtering
          – with a few clicks configure VPN access on ISA firewall.
          – configure VPN connections on clients
          And get equal or even better functionality because by using VPN clients will have same access capabilities as if they were on local network.

          Another example are cases where companies deployed instant messaging. Moving to Exchange 2003 platform would mean loss that functionality, because Exchange 2003 doesn’t support instant messaging anymore. In such situation clients will have to wait for Microsoft Office Live Communications Server 2003 to become available or get another 3rd party instant messaging solution.

          If we have a clean situation, a client that does not have an existing infrastructure, implementing the latest platform would be the of course the most logical choice. Same if you need excellent support for mobile devices or if you are migrating from another messaging system like Linux or Notes.

          As a conclusion: Based on my current positive Exchange 2003 experience I think Exchange 2003 is an excellent product which brings many new or improved functionalities and it certainly deserves to be evaluated . The decision to upgrade or not is on you and depends on your needs, current situation and cost.

          I personally work for a company that lives from software sales and related services including implementation and migrations. Therefore I would certainly like all of you people to upgrade ??. But I also believe that choosing the solution that fits our client best is a winning combination in a long run and keeps our customers satisfied and returning.


          Dejan Foro

      • #3543357

        Thanks for great responses and info

        by rsfuller2007 ·

        In reply to Migration/upgrade methods

        To all that gave such good info – thanks so much!

Viewing 0 reply threads