upgrade 2000 to 2003 in exchange enviroment...brain-power needed

[Michael]

Hello and Help

I need some brain-power....on the following

I have a Win2000 server running Exchange 2000....
I have a new server running on Win2003 with Exchange 2003..
both are configured as DC...
Is it possible to just put the new server into the network, let it syncronise with the old server, so I can
hold on to my Active-dir-structure with all the user-rights, and the all the mail-boxes, all user-directories
Or do dont they sync all that info..
In fact what do they sync?

thnx a millio

Michael

[Joseph J. Hand]

The only thing they sync is the actual user and object information. They do
not sync mailbox data, both private and public, the latter will upon
command, There are also several roles a DC can have like Global Catalog, PDC
Emulator, and others (more commenly known as FSMO roles). These will not
automatically be split up between the servers, they'd all need to be
manually transfered. As far as Exchange goes, you will want to create the
new store(s) for the new server and use AD Users and Computers to move all
of the mailboxes, which will take some time if it is a lot of data. User
directories are another manual step, but now you need to manage the
permissions on the folders and files. There are tools that help you with
this.

jh



"Michael" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99E3ADA0-5E0E-47D9-ABCB-344ED4D4F506@microsoft.com...

> Hello and Help.
>
> I need some brain-power....on the following:
>
> I have a Win2000 server running Exchange 2000.....
> I have a new server running on Win2003 with Exchange 2003...
> both are configured as DC....
> Is it possible to just put the new server into the network, let it

syncronise with the old server, so I can

> hold on to my Active-dir-structure with all the user-rights, and the all

the mail-boxes, all user-directories.

> Or do dont they sync all that info...
> In fact what do they sync??
>
> thnx a million
>
> Michael

[Michael]

Hi Joseph

I was affraid getting this answer...
I allready looked up some tech-tips on how to do all that, but was curious if there are more decent ways of doing it.
Maybe Microsoft has a beautifull challenge here to develop their software more backwards compatible...making upgrades and migrations less work for us
Thanks for the responce.

greeting

Michael

[Joseph J. Hand]

the only downside to further backward compatibility is it limits forward
movement. A move from NT to 2003, for instance, is very difficult due to the
fact that there are so many new features and additions, and the fact that it
needed a new infrastructure to support these new features. however, from
2000 to 2003, it is less work because the infrastructure is in place, just
being upgraded...

Sorry for the cliché, but... to make an omelet, some times you have to break
a few eggs...

jh



"Michael" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ADA3F9B5-C148-4D82-8DE0-75365B9BAD43@microsoft.com...

> Hi Joseph,
>
> I was affraid getting this answer...
> I allready looked up some tech-tips on how to do all that, but was curious

if there are more decent ways of doing it.

> Maybe Microsoft has a beautifull challenge here to develop their software

more backwards compatible...making upgrades and migrations less work for us.

> Thanks for the responce..
>
> greetings
>
> Michael