Ok here's the deal. I'm doing the swing method of upgrading a 2000 exchange server to 2003. I build the clean 2003 server and put it live along side the 2000 server. First, it decided to replicate the default settings for inbound\outbound mail limit of 10 mb (from the 2003 server). Then for some reason all public folders lost permissions. All the mailboxes are on the old server for now since we haven't started to migrate them but public folders seem to have issues. I thought the public folders would replicate to the new server. I could see permissions not working on the new server if something wasn't right but why are they gone on the old server? we haven't even started to move them. It seems it is taking forever to replicate...the folders are set to stay replicated. Do I need to change the priority?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
What the heck is going on?!!?!?!?!!?!?!?!? 2
- Thread starter htechhost
- Start date
-
2
- #2
There are a couple of parts to publif folder replication. Thie first is hierarchy replication. When you add a new server that has a public store, the public folder hierarchy [actually a folder itself] is replicated. In 2000 this would occasionally cause some problems because the server was added to the top of the pr_replicas list before the hierarchy replication had completed. This whould cause messages to back up in the local delivery queue.
After the hierarchy successfully replicates, you have content replication. For a new replica, this means backfill. One somewhat common problem stems from the changes in handling of replication status messages in 2000/2003. It is sometimes useful to set the "Enable replication status messages at startup" key, then dismount and mount the public store.
As far as the permissions, it depends. If your 2000 org started out a 5.5 org, then I'd say that an ACL conversion issue is at the root of the problem. You could write a book on the "zombie user" issue as it relates to ACL conversion. In 2000, one commonly deployed solution was the "Ignore zombie users" registry key. This didn't clean up the mess, but simply instructed exchange to ignore the dead DNs. If you previously used this solution in your environment, you'll need to be in native mode for 2003 to automagically ignore and remove the zombies.
Given the above I go to native mode as quickly as possible, hopefully before migrating public folders. I typically use pfmigrate to migrate the folders because it eliminates much of the tedious work of creating and removing replicas.
After the hierarchy successfully replicates, you have content replication. For a new replica, this means backfill. One somewhat common problem stems from the changes in handling of replication status messages in 2000/2003. It is sometimes useful to set the "Enable replication status messages at startup" key, then dismount and mount the public store.
As far as the permissions, it depends. If your 2000 org started out a 5.5 org, then I'd say that an ACL conversion issue is at the root of the problem. You could write a book on the "zombie user" issue as it relates to ACL conversion. In 2000, one commonly deployed solution was the "Ignore zombie users" registry key. This didn't clean up the mess, but simply instructed exchange to ignore the dead DNs. If you previously used this solution in your environment, you'll need to be in native mode for 2003 to automagically ignore and remove the zombies.
Given the above I go to native mode as quickly as possible, hopefully before migrating public folders. I typically use pfmigrate to migrate the folders because it eliminates much of the tedious work of creating and removing replicas.
- Thread starter
- #3
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Helpful tip
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question