My current file server is a Windows 2000 Dell PowerEdge 2600 with a 200gig RAID5 residing in a 2003 Domain. It has two partitions (5gig) and (195gig). My ultimate goal is to get it up to 2003 with two partitions (40gig) and (160gig). Would it be better to:
A) Back up the entire system, repartition, reinstall 2000, restore the backup, then upgrade to 2003, or...
B) Backup the entire system, repartition, install 2003, restore data from backup, then reset the 400 or so shares on the drive, printer configs, backup configs, SQL server configs, etc...
I guess the main question is whether or not it's a good idea to upgrade 2000 to 2003 or install a new copy of 2003 even though it's going to take a long ass time to do it.
Thanks
-Al
A) Back up the entire system, repartition, reinstall 2000, restore the backup, then upgrade to 2003, or...
B) Backup the entire system, repartition, install 2003, restore data from backup, then reset the 400 or so shares on the drive, printer configs, backup configs, SQL server configs, etc...
I guess the main question is whether or not it's a good idea to upgrade 2000 to 2003 or install a new copy of 2003 even though it's going to take a long ass time to do it.
Thanks
-Al