2 Domain Controllers on same subnet during migration?

Hi, I'm in the middle of setting up a migration.
I have one physical server with SBS2008 on it.
I have another server set up with Hyper V over server 2008 R2 Enterprise.

I want to set up a virtual server over Hyper V and I want to make it a DC (among other things) to test functionality and prepre for the migration.

BUT, if the virtual DC is on the same subnet, I assume this will cuase problems.
I want that DC to be able to see the internet (via our routers  which are on this subnet in question), but I don't want it to interfere with the existing SBS 2008 server.

Anyone have any idea how I can get away with this setup?
afurnessAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

 
afurnessAuthor Commented:
I could just make the network connections private networks, but then I'm not sure if external client PCs will be able to see the test DCs.
0
 
Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
> I assume this will cuase problems.
Why?  Are you going to use the same domain name?  Are you setting up a new domain?  Why not just add it as a DC to your existing SBS domain?
0
 
afurnessAuthor Commented:
I will give it a different domain name for the purposes of testing, then change it later once it takes over the SBS2008 domain controller ( which will then be decommissioned).

I don't really want to add it as a DC to the existing DC. I would like to keep them as separate as possible to avoid any migration issues that might occur as a result of that.

The main issue is I would like to use the same subnet though. I.E. if the IP address of the existing dc is 192.168.1.10 , I would want to make the ip address of the new test server 192.168.1.11 and not cause issues with exisitng users sigining onto the existing domain.

If I use a different Domain name (for example if the existing Domain is called "LIVEDOMAIN" and the live clients are a member of that and the new test domain is called "TESTDOMAIN" then they just don't pick that up somehow as a DC?

I'm porobably just being paranoid, but need to know this won't impact on my live system.
 
0
Network Scalability - Handle Complex Environments

Monitor your entire network from a single platform. Free 30 Day Trial Now!

 
HoenderdosCommented:
I would create an extra subnet on your router. put the new server in the new subnet. if this isn't supporterd by your router then i would put an extra router between the router for a while.

0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by ConnectWise

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
 
Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
The only problem you can expect if you use the same network is if you also enable DHCP on the test network (which shouldn't be necessary).  SBS DHCP will shut down if it detects another DHCP server on the network.  Other than that, there shouldn't be any problems at all, provided all the computers use unique names and the domain does as well.

Question - why are you getting rid of SBS?
0
 
TheMakCommented:
If you are creating different domain name for the purpose of testing then I don't see any problem. Other systems will not communicate with the new domain until and unless you add them to that new domain. I think you can straight away create new domain and for testing you can add some clients to the domain.. that should work fine.

creating new subnet and making new domain part of that subnet and then later on moving to other subnet might create some complications for you.

Anyhow there are lots of guru's over here and just wait for some more replies and I think you will some more options.

Regards,
0
 
afurnessAuthor Commented:
Question - why are you getting rid of SBS?

Regarding removing SBS:
We absolutely must have 24 hours access365 days a year, as we support several companies remote and need our server to to to do.
We are setting up a failover cluster so if we lose our main DC etc, it will just failover to a passive server straight away.
Unfortunately, sbs doesn't support this sort of thing.
Other than that we have been very happy with SBS and would continue using it if it supported failover clusters.

Regarding DHCP:
I would like to have everything running on the test server that would be running when it goes live, so I can be sure all will be ok when migrating.
I will into the idea of setting up another subnet on the router (or putting another router under it).
I will post results soon about how that turns out.
0
 
afurnessAuthor Commented:

""TheMak:
creating new subnet and making new domain part of that subnet and then later on moving to other subnet might create some complications for you.
Anyhow there are lots of guru's over here and just wait for some more replies and I think you will some more options.""

Oh right, yes I want to avoid any complications later.
0
 
afurnessAuthor Commented:
Sorry I meant to quote that last comment from "leew:"
0
 
Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
> We are setting up a failover cluster so if we lose our main DC etc, it will just failover to a passive server straight away.
> Unfortunately, sbs doesn't support this sort of thing.
> Other than that we have been very happy with SBS and would continue using it if it supported failover clusters.

No, SBS does not support clustering... but so what?  You can add servers and DCs so KEEP SBS and setup a cluster.  Or virtualize SBS and setup a Hyper-V cluster.
Either I'm misunderstanding you or you're misunderstanding SBS.
0
 
afurnessAuthor Commented:
I was under the impression that SBS didn't like Multiple DCs.
The failover clustering using Server 2008 R2 is largely automated once it's set up. IE, if the active server goes down, the passive server takes over automatically.
Is this possible using either solution you have posted?

In either case, I have already got the licenses for Server 2008 R2, so I'll be going that way anyway.
I want to be able to have a separate virtual Exxhange server (also over Server 2008 R2 enterprise).

Currently out SBS2008 server is a DC, exchange server, file server, everything. Which I'm told isn't ideal.
Virtualization seemed the way to go and isn't that expensive. It seems to me based on what I've read that Server 2008 R2 supports various features bettter than SBS2008.

When you say Virtualise SBS and set up a Hyper V cluster, are you saying another passive DC can take over automatically is the active SBS2008 server dies?

 
0
 
afurnessAuthor Commented:
Looking closer it looks like SBS2008 PREMIUM allows multiple DCs. I didn't know that.
Oh well, I'm using enterprise now anyway and have licenses.
0
 
TheMakCommented:
Windows Small Business Server 2008 Technical FAQ

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sbs/cc817589.aspx

Windows Small Business Server 2008 FAQ

http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/faq.aspx
0
 
Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
Wow, not sure who you've been speaking to.

SBS doesn't have a problem with additional DCs - it has a problem with additional SBS servers in the same domain - this is because SBS MUST be the FSMO master DC - Since you can't have two DCs holding the same FSMO roles in a single domain, you can only have one DC.  But you could have 20 DCs if you wanted so long as you don't try to move the FSMO roles.

You can setup everything you want to setup... just don't remove SBS and you'll keep RWW - RWW is NOT available without it.  Nor are the wizards.

If you move away from SBS you'll have to get new CALs - if you KEEP SBS and just add the setup you want, you should be fine - the SBS CALs should cover you.

Further, you'll have a ton of migration work moving the users, their profiles, and the computers to a new domain that is easily avoided by just keeping the SBS box running.

There is NO SUCH THING as a passive DC - all DCs are DCs - they all authenticate users and accept updates to AD - in NT4 a BDC was only a Read-Only directory, but in AD, EVERYTHING is read/write.

> It seems to me based on what I've read that Server 2008 R2 supports various features bettter than SBS2008.
Such as?  Several features are improved in 2008 but nothing terribly specific that precludes continued use of SBS 2008 in ADDITION to 2008 R2.

You are, of course, welcome to make this more complicated than it has to be, but it really doesn't have to be complicated.

When I mention Hyper-V, a hyper-v cluster would host a VM - if the server the VM was running on failed, the other server would take it over.  But this is just one of many options.

Before you continue with your plans, I strongly suggest you review the REAL limitations of SBS (they aren't significant to most people) and the costs involved - even if you've bought new server licenses, you can continue to use them and potentially save money on licensing for CALs.

Finally, Yes, it's preferred to have Exchange on a NON-DC, but it's a supported and well accepted practice - SBS is a very stable platform when installed properly.  The primary issue is with shutdown speed - which can be mitigated with a small script that pre-shuts down certain services.
0
 
Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
No, PREMIUM COMES with an additional license - both versions can have additional DCs and servers - Premium just saves you a little money.
0
 
afurnessAuthor Commented:
Thanks for the long write up, I appreciate it.
It looks like I have a think more about the various options.

I recently went on a MS approved Server 2008 course. I told them about our needs (server redundancy etc).
They told me you can't have the DC redundancy using SBS2008 unfortunately, so I went from there looking at Server 2008 Enterprise. I't s not like they had an agenda to sell me anything, odd.

Regarding RWW, People mostly use it for OWA, but there is an enterprise equivalent. (Outlook web app.) and VPN, which works on Enterprise.
 
Anyway regarding my original question. I'm still not 100% sure which way to go so the test server doesn't interfere with ourt existing server.
I quite liked the idea of creating a new subnet on the existing router (or adding a new router under the existing router) but I don't want complications when migrating, if changing domain names and IP addresses is an issue.

 


 
0
 
Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
> They told me you can't have the DC redundancy using SBS2008
Either they misunderstood your question or you misunderstood their answer - or they're idiots - anyone who knows SBS knows you can have as many DCs as you want.

As I said to your original question, you shouldn't have any problem other than DHCP.  That said, unless there's a good reason, "test" networks should never be on "production" networks.
0
 
afurnessAuthor Commented:
> They told me you can't have the DC redundancy using SBS2008
>Either they misunderstood your question or you misunderstood their answer - or they're idiots - >anyone who knows SBS knows you can have as many DCs as you want.

Looking online now it seems a common misconception about this.
Oh well, Still not too late to go back and keep sbs2008.

>As I said to your original question, you shouldn't have any problem other than DHCP.  That said, >unless there's a good reason, "test" networks should never be on "production" networks.

I agree, I would prefer to keep it well away from our production network.
Our set up is we use a shared building. The firm that manages the building provides our internet access. We have a switch that connects to their system and provides our internet access (which is on a comptelely different subnet).
I can set up a new external address on a new router connected to this switch and then assign the same Domain name, IP address everything to whatever is under that router.
That way only the external address is seen, which is unique, everything under that new router can be whatever I want.
I do need to ensure I set up a special floor port in our office that only goes directly to the new router.
That way I can set up a client PC to see the new server.

I think that should be safe and separated from the Production boxes.


0
 
afurnessAuthor Commented:
I sound a bit dense when it comes to Windows servers.
I'm primarily an ISeries programmer, but this is a small-ish company.
I'm the most knowledgeable aboout Windows server technology, so I sort of get dumped into the server admin role.
I'm pretty good with general Server admin and very good with PCs etc. But Advanced server technology I'm not an expert with. A lot of it is pretty new to me.
I Originally did a server migration from SBS2008 to SBS2008 a couple of years back using a "Swing" migration. So I have done migrations before and worked with some advanced topics, but not real qualifications or proper training.
 

0
 
afurnessAuthor Commented:
Sorry meant sbs2003 to sbs2008 migration
0
 
afurnessAuthor Commented:
I split it between both suggestions as I'm going with the additional router option.
But the information aboput DHCP was good to know.

Thanks to all that replied. All very informative  posts.
The info about SBS2008 was great extra information.
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.