We are currently attempting to setup a backup server to our main server in the event of disaster.
We are running SBS 2003, so as you can image theres alot going on with just this one server.
We need to have the backup server as close to a replica as we can get to our main server.
We currently have named this backup server the same name as the main server, as well as the domain names. The machines are NOT part of the same domain, but the domain name is the same. This is so we can restore the Exchange Mailboxes from an NT Backup on to the backup server without any problems.(Had to do a brick layer backup last time, not too fun, and couldnt do all of the mailboxes, since many mailboxes are over 2gig, in the event of disaster we obviously wouldnt have time to run around and manually download everyones email into a .pst since our server doesnt exist anymore).
We are going to have this server offsite, and it will be part of an SQL replication chain. If disaster ever occurs, we will take the ntbackup data and restore the hard drive files that we need on to the backup server.
This obviously means that email coming in to the server will be halted unless we divert the mail with a backup mx record to the backup server.
Theres also a small issue with the ADMT, it will not let me migrate user accounts from the current domain to the new domain (since they have the same domain name!).
The primary issue here is the naming, same server name and domain name. This is required to do an exchange restore yet its going to cause problems with ADMT, putting it on the same subnet on our network to finish updating/activating(so it can access the router/internet), and of course there might be a problem with SQL replication.
Like I said, the backup server should at all times be in a state where if our server was to be destroyed in some manner, stolen, malfunction, hit with a nuclear warhead, melted in a fire etc, that the backup server could take over in a couple hours after doing some file data restores.
Anyway, my primary concern is this naming conflict. I dont understand why I am required to have the same name exchange server, when doing so causes problems elsewhere.
Seems like SBS wasnt built for disaster recovery.