What would you do - upgrade 2k, or clean install?

[SimonDavis]

I have a small network (10 users on XP, 3 servers), running 2k. There's an exchange 5.5 server, and a raptor firewall.

All the server side is going, to be replaced by 2003r2, exchange 2007 and ISA server 2006.

I'm thinking it'll probably be simpler to just do a clean install, rather than try to upgrade. I can do it over a few weekends, swapping out the server hard disks on a Friday night and firing up the old one on Monday morning, until I'm happy all is ready.

All I'd really need to do is take a copy of the public folders on Exchange - most of which will be archived anyway so it's just a question of copying a couple of gigs to a .pst file, then back to the new server. Same for the users home folders, there's 5gb of data at most.

Anybody see any problems with that? I'm not a fan of upgrades, so unless there's a compelling reason not to do so, I'd prefer to start over.

 

[Roadki11]

I think you need to research the heck out of this upgrade and formulate a well thought out plan to upgrade/migrate to 2k3, better have a good contingency plan also. Start by reading the following doc, i am also quoting some interesting points from the doc that i found compelling.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa996719.aspx

"For Exchange 2007 RTM and Exchange 2007 SP1, in each domain (including child domains) where you plan to install Exchange 2007, you must have at least one domain controller that is running at least Windows Server 2003 SP1."

"You cannot have any Exchange Server 5.5 servers in your Exchange organization, and your Exchange organization must be running in native mode. For more information about how to convert an Exchange organization to native mode, see "How to Convert from Mixed Mode to Native Mode in Exchange" in the Exchange Server 2003 Deployment Guide."

I think you should get some new hardware for this one.

"It is not supported to install Exchange 2007 server roles on a computer that has a 32-bit processor in a production environment. You can install Exchange 2007 server roles on a computer that has a 32-bit processor in testing and training environments only."
"The 32-bit version of Exchange 2007, which requires an Intel Pentium or compatible 800-megahertz (MHz) or faster 32-bit processor, is provided for testing and training environments only. It is not supported for production environments. In production environments, you must install the 64-bit version of Exchange 2007."

Im not trying to say i know how to best perform this upgrade/migration, nor do i plan on doing the leg work for you, maybe someone else can. Im just trying to point out its going to be complicated and you are going to need to put a lot of work in research and even lab testing before you even start. Seems to me its going to cost a lot of money getting 64bit hardware and OS's for 10 users, maybe a small business server would be a better option for you.

RoadKi11

 

[SimonDavis]

Interesting, thanks for that. I wasn't aware the 2007 had that requirement - I'd have thought the MS resellers would have mentioned it . . .

I think though what you say probably supports my idea. If I begin by installing a new 'clean' 2003 domain, the problems of mixing/matching exchange versions (or any other odd mixtures) shouldn't be an issue.

I think hardware wise, other than the 64 bit question, I should be OK. The servers I will use will be either IBM xseries, or HP proliant servers, all of which are reasonably specced - min 3ghz processors, and 2gb RAM.

Regarding the test environment, absolutely agree. I have already created a very vanilla 2003 domain on spare servers, I'll create everything I need on that before I even think about the real task.

Appreciate your input though, I will certainly do some reading before I start hacking away at any production environments.

 

[SimonDavis]

Just a quick update, for anyone looking at similar scenarios.

The HP Proliants are quite happy with 2003 x64. The only problem I see so far is that there aren't many drivers about for that OS. It needs specific drivers, so check that any extra gadgetry you have is supported.

Onwards . . .

 

[mofusjtf]

Why on earth do you have 3 servers for 10 users? HAve you considered SBS2k3 Premium? It will have W2k3, exchange, ISA & SQL. You don't have to install all the components but it will save you a bundle of money from a software and licensing perspective which you could put into the server hardware. Just a thought.

If you have to stay with 3 separate servers, I would definitely do a clean install and migrate the data.

 

[SimonDavis]

Hi, thanks for the answer.

I looked at SBS23k, but as it has all the 'old' versions of the software, I thought the extra cost was worth the money. (especially exchange 2003 vs 2007). This lot will have to last at least 5 years+, by which time Exchange 2003 will probably be long unsupported.

I'm also not wild about the idea of everything being on one server, even though with three I will have to bust a few rules.

I've definitely opted for a clean install though. I'm setting up a test network at the moment, which is more or less working .. .

 

[58sniper]

Going to SBS is still the better choice. There will still be support for Exchange 2003.

Creating a clean AD environment will require that you manually remove each workstation from the current domain, then add them to the new one, then deal with their old profiles.

How are you planning on getting the mail into Exchange? There is no Exmerge until SP1.

"copying a couple of gigs to a pst file" won't work. You're limited to 1.92GB per .pst file.

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP

 

[SimonDavis]

I can see the argument, but with 10 users it's not really much of an issue. Connecting to a new domain is a couple of hours work.

Same with the mail transfer - for each user I'll set a local .pst client on each machine, tell exchange to deliver to that, leave it overnight to move everything in the personal folder into the .pst. For the public folders I'll just use several .pst files if I need to.

I'd also prefer this way as it gives me better experience. I'm not an IT guy, but I have run networks for 15 years in small companies who can't justify the cost of dedicated employees. I like to keep my skills as up to date as I can, even if they're nowhere near the level of professionals like you guys.