Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of NYWIIT
NYWIITFlag for United States of America

asked on

Exchange 2003 migration

Hi,

I have several exchange 2003 boxes still in production.  I read that there's not a direct migration path from 2003 to 2013.  What are my options?  2003 to 2010 to 2013?  Is that worth it or can I just get a new box with server 2012 and exchange 2013 with a clean install and import the entire 2003 database from a backup (or even the mdb file if possible)?  Each install is less than 100 users so I can even export and import PSTs if that would make it less painless than upgrading.  Please advise your thoughts.  Also, exchange is currently running on the DC (server 2003) on a couple installations, would I need to get a new box with server 2012 as well for the DC or can I maintain the 2003 DC for a little while longer?  I know support ends in 2015.  Kind of a loaded question but I'm looking to get different inputs and hopefully get a consensus on the best way to approach this.  Thanks much.
Avatar of cwstad2
cwstad2
Flag of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland image

Hi id make a fresh install on a VM if possible and migrate the mailboxes to 2010 or 2013. Make sure the CPU supports 64 bit
Avatar of NYWIIT

ASKER

Any reason on a VM?  is that just for migration purposes?
Easier to manage
I personally recommend going through the 2010 interim migration. You cannot restore a 2003 database directly nor pull directly in from MDB, so those scenarios are simply off the table.

So the choice is 2010 interim or PST. And exporting mailboxes to PST in 2003 can be downright painful in 2003 depending on size. It is error prone and your chance of data loss goes up exponentially. Hence my recommendation.

As a final note, windows server 2003 support ends in 2015, but exchange 2003 support ends NEXT MONTH. And trying to maintain a DC that has/had exchange on it is also painful. So plan your new DCs as well. Don't try to stretch them out.
Hi, nywiit76


We suggest to do all the procedures in VM, this is easy and manageable process.

And it will save your budget also, and migrate the mailboxes to 2010 or 2013. Make sure the CPU supports 64 bit
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of hecgomrec
hecgomrec
Flag of Canada image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of NYWIIT

ASKER

Thanks guys.  So, for instance, I have a customer with 100 mailboxes (300Gb Exchange DB) running exchange 2003 enterprise on their server 2003 domain controller; how would you handle that?  Would you purchase 2 new servers, 1 for DC and 1 for exchange or would you purchase 1 server and create 2 VMs on it (1 for DC and 1 for exchange)?  Thanks.
Every thing  depends on budget.

Of course, It will be better to have 2 servers (boxes). One small (ex.:HP360,16GB) and another big server (HP380, 32GB)

I will do the following:

Box 1:

DC Server with 1 VM to install Exchange 2010

     Install Server (2012 or 2008)
     Migrate DC, DHCP, DNS, etc.
     Migrate Exchange 2003 to 2010
     Transfer FSMO
     Remove Exchange 2003
     Remove Server 2003

Box 2:

Server (Member only) with Exchange 2013

     Install Server (2012 or 2008)
     Migrate Exchange 2010 to 2013
     Remove Exchange 2010
     Remove VM
     Raise Domain Level to current server.


If you have a good budget, you may get a very beefy server and work with Server 2012 which allows you to have up to 2 VMs and you could do all your migration within one physical box and 3 machines running on it.

Again, is a matter of budget and of course taste and preparation in case of hardware failure.  Every scenario is different... In my case I have see people aiming more for a good strong Exchange server and a very poor one for their data as they can wait for a data server to be rebuilt but not for their emails.
Avatar of NYWIIT

ASKER

Thanks Hecgomrec.  I appreciate the info and like your plan.  Very helpful.  I'm leaning along those lines for this specific customer with 125 mailboxes.  They're likely to increase to 200 mailboxes in about 12 - 24 months; does that change anything?

Also, I need to do the same for a 75 user, a 25 user, and a 5 user exchange environment.  All are currently running exchange 2003 on their server 2003 DC.  how would you address those?

Thanks
Actually, the scenarios are pretty much the same for any environment:  

1.  Install a new Server as a Member
2.  Install Exchange 2010
3. Migrate current exchange
4. Install another Server for AD, DNS, DHCP, etc
5. Transfer FSMO
6. Remove old Exchange
7. Remove old Server (2003)
8. Install new Server as a Member for Exchange 2013
9. Install Exchange 2013.
10.Migrate current exchange to 2013
11.Remove old Exchange.

Now, some will consider the amount of users not worth to go all the way migrating but to move to Office in the cloud.

My recommendation, as always, consider budget, customer needs, implementation and support costs to make the final decision.
Avatar of NYWIIT

ASKER

This customer is still kind of debating whether to stay on premise or go with Office 365. How would you compare/contrast the two in terms of pros and cons? I have explained some of it to them but another perspective is always helpful in case I overlooked anything. Was going to start another thread asking for input on that but since you raised it figured let me just keep it here. Pls advise. Appreciate the input. Thanks.
Your next item is a "new question" but I would advise you to consider that you get pro support and great up-time from "software as a service" plus you get to run the latest versions and don't have to worry about hardware.  There are lots of pluses and very few minuses to moving to Office 365.  After having performed several migrations just like your primary question supposes I wouldn't hesitate to suggest Office 365 as a "final solution."