Avatar of rcg112355
rcg112355
 asked on

Migrating from 2000 SBS Exchange to 2003 SBS Exchange

I am adding a Windows 2003 SBS server to a network with an existing Windows 2000 server. I intend to leave the 2000 server in place to be used as a file and print server and move the Exchange functions over to the Windows 2003 machine. Are there any special considerations that I need to keep in mind while migrating active directory information and Exchange mailboxes?

Thanks
Windows Server 2003ExchangeSBS

Avatar of undefined
Last Comment
tigermatt

8/22/2022 - Mon
Murat Raymond

ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Jeffrey Kane - TechSoEasy

THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
See Pricing Options
Start Free Trial
GET A PERSONALIZED SOLUTION
Ask your own question & get feedback from real experts
Find out why thousands trust the EE community with their toughest problems.
rcg112355

ASKER
My main goal in this move is to upgrade to a newer version of Exchange. After the move can't I just disable the Exchange services on the 200 server and keep it in place to be used as a file server?

Let me also clarify something else. The guy who originally set up this network chose (for whatever reason) to not make the client computers part of the domain. So they currently don't truly log onto the domain. He set up identical user accounts on the server so that the authentication would pass through for purposes of file sharing. Does this change your statement that the 2000 can't be left in palce for anything??

Thanks
Murat Raymond

No,
As TechSoEasy Mentoned above, SBS Must be the only DC on the network. You can add another Win2k3 or win2k server as member servers but not a SBS server.
Your help has saved me hundreds of hours of internet surfing.
fblack61
rcg112355

ASKER
So perhaps rather than install 2003 SBS I would be better off installing a regular version of 2003 and Exchange and install this in the network as a member server.
Jeffrey Kane - TechSoEasy

No, you why would you think that?  The cost of installing a regular version of Server 2003 and Exchange is a few thousand dollars more than upgrading to SBS 2003.  Additionally, the long-term management costs are significantly more than using SBS.

How many users are there in your network?

Why do you think you need a second server anyhow?

Jeff
TechSoEasy
rcg112355

ASKER
We already own the server and the software. My goal in getting a second server is to upgrade Exchange for better OWA. I also have remote users that log onto the existing server using termonal services and run programs and upload files. I would really like to isolate their activity from the critical e-mail server.
⚡ FREE TRIAL OFFER
Try out a week of full access for free.
Find out why thousands trust the EE community with their toughest problems.
Jeffrey Kane - TechSoEasy

Well you can't run Terminal Services on an SBS 2003 in application mode anyhow.  So isolating their activity is required with SBS 2003.  If these are users that only work remotely, you would need a second server running TS.  If they are only part-time remote, and have a workstation in the office, then they can use SBS 2003's Remote Web Workplace to connect to their office workstation (see http://sbsurl.com/rww).

When you say you already own the server and software... is that through ActionPack or some such licensing?

Do you have enough standard Server 2003 and Exchange CALs?  Because you can't use the SBS ones then.

You didn't answer my question about how many users there are on the network.

Jeff
TechSoEasy
rcg112355

ASKER
TS will stay on the 2000 SBS. The two useres of TS are located remotely and share development responsibilites for Office applications that reside on the server.

As consultants our company owns copies of 2003 and Exchange that are ready to be deployed on an emergency basis. So we have fully licensed copies at our disposal.

There are 7 fulltime inhouse users who rely very heavily on e-mail and frequently send and receive large attachments in the order of 2-5MBytes. There are 25 remote users located worldwide that almost never come into the office. Some of them have configured Outlook to get mail directly from the POP3 at the ISP (Exchange is currently configured to get mail via POP3, but I want to get away from that). The rest of the remote users rely on access via webmail as they are not confident enough to configure Outlook.
Jeffrey Kane - TechSoEasy

If you truly want the best solution, then the right thing to do is deploy SBS 2003 with an additional Server 2003 as a TS.  The way you are trying to do it is backwards.

As for your remote users using webmail... if you used SBS 2003 you wouldn't have to use POP3 anymore because they can get their email via Outlook Web Access or with Outlook 2003 configured with RPC over HTTPS.  Very detailed instructions (customized for your installation) for configuring RPC over HTTPS are created when you install SBS 2003 and can be accessed on the Remote Web Workplace main menu.

Jeff
TechSoEasy
I started with Experts Exchange in 2004 and it's been a mainstay of my professional computing life since. It helped me launch a career as a programmer / Oracle data analyst
William Peck
tigermatt

No comment has been added to this question in more than 21 days, so it is now classified as abandoned.

I will leave the following recommendation for this question in the Cleanup Zone:

          Accept TechSoEasy's comment as answer.

Any objections should be posted here in the next 4 days. After that time, the question will be closed.

tigermatt
Experts Exchange Cleanup Volunteer