2003 SBS into Exchange 5.5 org

[w2rus]

Hi

Could someone advise if it is possible to upgrade exchange 5.5 running on a W2K Adv Server c/w AD to Windows 2003 SBS with exchange

I have tried a couple of times using Virtual Machines, but the install of Exchange on the SBS box does not join the existing Exchange 5.5 org. I have the steps required to join Exch 2003 to exch 5.5 on the exchange disk, but it still creates a new Exchnage org.

The 2k server and exchange 5.5 will be removed from the domain once the mail boxes have been moved to the new server


Thanks

W2rus

 

[TechSoEasyMVP]

Migrating TO a new SBS 2003 is not something you should do without first fully understanding how SBS works and must exist within it's domain. Because a proper migration does not join an SBS 2003 to an existing domain, but rather you would migrate the Exchange 5.5 mailboxes to SBS2003's Exchange 2003 Server and the new domain using the Exchange Migration Wizard.

(It is possible to join an SBS to an existing domain, but this is only for rare circumstances and is NOT a migration method)

FIRST: Review the common mistakes made when migrating from a Win2K Domain to Server 2003 to make sure that you don't do any of them before you get started:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555040

Follow that with the KB article describing the common mistakes made when migrating from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555262

Then, follow the detailed migration documentation for this project:

http://sbsurl.com/migrate

If this is your first foray into SBS 2003, you may want to consider using the Swing Migration Method from

http://www.sbsmigration.com.

They will provide you with a complete migration documentation kit as well as great support during the process. Their process also has a few additional benefits that the standard migration path does not... such as being able to keep the same internal domain name, and not having any network down time.

Good Luck!

Jeff
TechSoEasy



Jeffrey B. Kane
TechSoEasy

http://www.techsoeasy.com

 

[w2rus]

Hi Jeff

Thanks for the info, I will have a look at the documentation, but I am now considering just adding a standard Exchange server to the existing network

It has already been upgraded to a 2003 domain when a new server was installed last year, my comp want prices for both options, ie exchange server or SBS

It looks like the standalone option will be best in the long run

Thanks again

W2rus

 

[58sniper]

If it's not a ton of email, I'd export it to .pst files, then import them into new mailboxes on the SBS box.

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[w2rus]

58sniper

Thanks for that idea

W2rus

 

[TechSoEasyMVP]

w2rus,

Why do you say that the stand-alone would be best in the long run?

How many users are there on your network? Because if you currently have less than 50, then SBS is not only a better value up front, but it offers SO MUCH MORE than stand-alone versions. Management is much easier (assuming that you deploy it according to the way it was designed to be used), and the end-user experience is significantly better with things like Remote Web Workplace (

http://sbsurl.com/rww)

and a pre-configured SharePoint intranet.



Jeffrey B. Kane
TechSoEasy

http://www.techsoeasy.com

 

[TechSoEasyMVP]

w2rus,

Why do you say that the stand-alone would be best in the long run?

How many users are there on your network? Because if you currently have less than 50, then SBS is not only a better value up front, but it offers SO MUCH MORE than stand-alone versions. Management is much easier (assuming that you deploy it according to the way it was designed to be used), and the end-user experience is significantly better with things like Remote Web Workplace (

http://sbsurl.com/rww)

and a pre-configured SharePoint intranet.

If you ever grow out of SBS (more than 75 users or devices) the transition pack (

http://sbsurl.com/transition)

will move you to stand-alone server licensing for excactly the difference in price that those licenses would have cost to begin with.




Jeffrey B. Kane
TechSoEasy

http://www.techsoeasy.com

 

[w2rus]

Hi TechSoEasy

First of all, sorry for the delay on posting

Reason I throught stand alone would be better is for ease of deployment

I have tried a number of times now using virtual machines to deploy SBS into existing domain, but exchange will just not join the existing organisation, it sets a new one up each time.

I am currently running with 38 users

It looks like I will be getting a couple of boxes made available to me from a network which is being decomm'd

I will have the choice of a sbs box, but will need to purchase cals, or a Server 2003 box, for which I already have cals, I will need to purchase exchange license + exchange device cals

So the onle thing I will need to purchase is exchange 2003 std + cals, or 35 SBS cals

I am just looking for the best option deplotment wise


Thanks for you reply

W2rus

 

[TechSoEasyMVP]

Well, your testing is flawed, that's all... as I stated originally above, you don't install an SBS into an existing domain... you migrate to your new SBS domain.

But that doesn't make SBS an inferior solution, just a different one.

As for pricing, the Exchange CALs generally cost the same as SBS CALs and you get so much more with the SBS ones.
The server licenses are also fairly similarly priced. (SBS vs Exchange).

What you have to factor in that I didn't see you mention is your longer term management costs. A properly deployed SBS Network has very low maintenance needs... much lower than stand-alone server products.

Then, if you follow my recommendation to use the migration method from

http://www.sbsmigration.com

you'll have a migration that will work.



Jeffrey B. Kane
TechSoEasy

http://www.techsoeasy.com

Blog:

http://techsoeasy.spaces.live.com

 

[w2rus]

Thanks Jeffrey

I will take a look at the site

Cheers

W2rus