Location: List Archives

List Archives

This forum is an archive of all posts to our mailing list over the past few years.  The forum is set read only therefore to contribute you will need to join our list community.  See more info about this here.

List Archives

Forums >ActiveDir Mail List Archive >List Archives
Subject: [ActiveDir] 2003 to 2003 Upgrade Questions
Prev Next
You are not authorized to post a reply.

AuthorMessages
AD000001552User is Offline

Posts:0

05/26/2006 5:20 AM  
We are preparing for our upgrade from AD 2000 to 2003. I am working out
our upgrade plan and have a few questions regarding recovery/contingency
plans.

Our environment supports about 1700 desktops and 120+ servers. We have
two AD sites and four domain controllers. All DCS are GCs.

High level review of steps that we will be taking to prepare for
recovery in the event that the entire upgrade goes south:
* System state backups of all domain controllers.
* Disk image of our DC holding all FSMO roles. This machine will have
the hotfix related to the USN rollback applied before imaging. The image
will be loaded onto identical hardware and run offline to confirm that
it is good.
* Addition of one domain controller running as a virtual machine in a
different site, which will be copied offline for disaster recovery
purposes.
* We have successfully performed the schema update against our AD in a
lab environment and did not run into any problems.
* In the event of problems during the upgrade process, our plans call
for contacting PSS and working through normal recovery processes. The
disk image and virtual machine copy are intended for use in event that
normal recovery attempts have failed and we need to recover from
scratch.
* We are running the full gamut of health checks to make sure we have a
healthy AD before beginning any upgrade tasks in our production
environment.

Questions:
It is my feeling that the schema update is a more significant step than
adding the first Server 2003 DC. Is this correct? Does the process of
adding a Server 2003 domain controller present any level of risk greater
than adding a W2K DC?

We are considering adding a lag site and performing the schema update in
the lag site and ensuring that it replicates successfully in the lag
site before letting it hit the rest on the domain controllers.
Considering the size of our environment, is the process of upgrading the
schema in a lag site going to add unnecessary complication to the
process? I know that may be very subjective.

Is it a worthwhile strategy to add a lag site for the purpose of
recovery during the upgrade process? We are not otherwise using lag
sites at this time.

If we add a lag site for the schema update, do we need to physically
disconnect it from the other sites when the schema is updated to prevent
the replication from occurring after the update?

Thanks in advance for any input.

Devin
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
activedirsmaporgUser is Offline

Posts:0

05/26/2006 5:42 AM  
Just to be clear, the fix for USN rollback doesn't make restoring an image
a Microsoft supported mechanism. It's still not supported, just makes it
less likely (though not 100%) to hork DS / AD.

Cheers,
BrettSh [msft]
On Fri, 26 May 2006, Riley, Devin wrote:

> We are preparing for our upgrade from AD 2000 to 2003. I am working out
> our upgrade plan and have a few questions regarding recovery/contingency
> plans.
>
> Our environment supports about 1700 desktops and 120+ servers. We have
> two AD sites and four domain controllers. All DCS are GCs.
>
> High level review of steps that we will be taking to prepare for
> recovery in the event that the entire upgrade goes south:
> * System state backups of all domain controllers.
> * Disk image of our DC holding all FSMO roles. This machine will have
> the hotfix related to the USN rollback applied before imaging. The image
> will be loaded onto identical hardware and run offline to confirm that
> it is good.
> * Addition of one domain controller running as a virtual machine in a
> different site, which will be copied offline for disaster recovery
> purposes.
> * We have successfully performed the schema update against our AD in a
> lab environment and did not run into any problems.
> * In the event of problems during the upgrade process, our plans call
> for contacting PSS and working through normal recovery processes. The
> disk image and virtual machine copy are intended for use in event that
> normal recovery attempts have failed and we need to recover from
> scratch.
> * We are running the full gamut of health checks to make sure we have a
> healthy AD before beginning any upgrade tasks in our production
> environment.
>
> Questions:
> It is my feeling that the schema update is a more significant step than
> adding the first Server 2003 DC. Is this correct? Does the process of
> adding a Server 2003 domain controller present any level of risk greater
> than adding a W2K DC?
>
> We are considering adding a lag site and performing the schema update in
> the lag site and ensuring that it replicates successfully in the lag
> site before letting it hit the rest on the domain controllers.
> Considering the size of our environment, is the process of upgrading the
> schema in a lag site going to add unnecessary complication to the
> process? I know that may be very subjective.
>
> Is it a worthwhile strategy to add a lag site for the purpose of
> recovery during the upgrade process? We are not otherwise using lag
> sites at this time.
>
> If we add a lag site for the schema update, do we need to physically
> disconnect it from the other sites when the schema is updated to prevent
> the replication from occurring after the update?
>
> Thanks in advance for any input.
>
> Devin
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
>

List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
AD000001552User is Offline

Posts:0

05/26/2006 5:54 AM  
Thanks. That does seem to be pretty clear. We would like to avoid
horking AD :)

Devin

-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:42 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] 2003 to 2003 Upgrade Questions

Just to be clear, the fix for USN rollback doesn't make restoring an
image a Microsoft supported mechanism. It's still not supported, just
makes it less likely (though not 100%) to hork DS / AD.

Cheers,
BrettSh [msft]
On Fri, 26 May 2006, Riley, Devin wrote:

> We are preparing for our upgrade from AD 2000 to 2003. I am working
> out our upgrade plan and have a few questions regarding
> recovery/contingency plans.
>
> Our environment supports about 1700 desktops and 120+ servers. We have

> two AD sites and four domain controllers. All DCS are GCs.
>
> High level review of steps that we will be taking to prepare for
> recovery in the event that the entire upgrade goes south:
> * System state backups of all domain controllers.
> * Disk image of our DC holding all FSMO roles. This machine will have
> the hotfix related to the USN rollback applied before imaging. The
> image will be loaded onto identical hardware and run offline to
> confirm that it is good.
> * Addition of one domain controller running as a virtual machine in a
> different site, which will be copied offline for disaster recovery
> purposes.
> * We have successfully performed the schema update against our AD in a

> lab environment and did not run into any problems.
> * In the event of problems during the upgrade process, our plans call
> for contacting PSS and working through normal recovery processes. The
> disk image and virtual machine copy are intended for use in event that

> normal recovery attempts have failed and we need to recover from
> scratch.
> * We are running the full gamut of health checks to make sure we have
> a healthy AD before beginning any upgrade tasks in our production
> environment.
>
> Questions:
> It is my feeling that the schema update is a more significant step
> than adding the first Server 2003 DC. Is this correct? Does the
> process of adding a Server 2003 domain controller present any level of

> risk greater than adding a W2K DC?
>
> We are considering adding a lag site and performing the schema update
> in the lag site and ensuring that it replicates successfully in the
> lag site before letting it hit the rest on the domain controllers.
> Considering the size of our environment, is the process of upgrading
> the schema in a lag site going to add unnecessary complication to the
> process? I know that may be very subjective.
>
> Is it a worthwhile strategy to add a lag site for the purpose of
> recovery during the upgrade process? We are not otherwise using lag
> sites at this time.
>
> If we add a lag site for the schema update, do we need to physically
> disconnect it from the other sites when the schema is updated to
> prevent the replication from occurring after the update?
>
> Thanks in advance for any input.
>
> Devin
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
>

List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Forums >ActiveDir Mail List Archive >List Archives > [ActiveDir] 2003 to 2003 Upgrade Questions



ActiveForums 3.7
AdventNet Banner
Friends

Friends

Namescape
Members

Members

MembershipMembership:
Latest New UserLatest:jonrmeyer
New TodayNew Today:7
New YesterdayNew Yesterday:0
User CountOverall:4279
People OnlinePeople Online:
VisitorsVisitors:104
MembersMembers:0
TotalTotal:104
Online NowOnline Now:

Ads

Copyright 2008 ActiveDir.org
Terms Of Use