Windows 2000 Role Seizure

[OroITDirector]

I recently had a Windows 2000 SP4 server fail yesterday, so I seized a couple of roles with a Windows 2003 server. (PDC, RID, and Infrastructure Master) The failed server also held the Domain Naming and Schema master. Is it best to seize the roles with the Windows 2003 server or the other Windows 2000 SP4 server that is running fine. The only reason I ask is because I saw an article that states possible problems with Active Directory after seizing those roles and it having cross-references. Anyone know about this?

 

[Selspiero]

do it on the 2000 server

the reason being is that the schema will differ, and be dependant on the functional level of the domain

once the 2000 server has the roles, you can then adprep on the 2003 server and raise the functional level etc

 

[OroITDirector]

I already did it with the 2003 server. The current 2000 domain is not running in native mode. When switching to native, can a windows 98 machine still function on the domain? Also, since I already seized the roles with the 2003 server, will I have any problems if I don't give them to the 2000 sp4 server?

 

[ntinlin]

For W98 you need to adjust the domain security policy to disable 'Digitally Sign Communications (always)' and allow 'Digitally Sign Communcations (if client agrees) on MS Network Server.
I can't remember if this is a requirement for W2000 native or if it is for W2003 mode (the latter I think) but does no harm to change it.

Well you couldn't change to W2K native mode if the roles are on the W2003 server. It would only allow you to go to W2003, which you can't of course do if you have W2K DC's.

Obviously you must have extended the schema before putting in your first W2003 DC.

If you have seized the Schema role then remember that you can NEVER ever bring the original W2K DC up without blowing it away and starting again.

Neill