Replace 2003 Servers with 2012 R2

Virtualize.  Setup the new physical servers with Hyper-V.  Then install a DC in the VM for each.  Just make it a second DC for the site.  Then turn off of the old 2003 server and make sure everything is ok.  Assuming it is, you can power the 2003 BACK ON and then properly demote it.  You can setup the servers UP TO the point of being DCs at one site but I wouldn't promote them until they are in place.

That is an interesting approach.  I definitely had not thought of the VM aspect.  I'm not sure why though.  Couldn't I just make them a second DC without being virtualized and accomplish the same thing?  Can you elaborate on your idea please?

FYI - All of the remote servers are also print servers and have their own DHCP scope.

Thanks

IF you want to potentially waste a license, sure, install to hardware.  2012 R2 allows you to have 2 VMs per purchased copy of 2012 R2 Standard.  You can further ease your hardware upgrade process by having it as a VM to begin with.  Virtualization, not being new (it's been a major part of Windows for 7 years and a major player with VM long before that), in my opinion, your question shouldn't be "why should I virtualize"; it should be why SHOULDN'T I virtualize?  There COULD be valid reasons... but for the most part, the flexibility in hardware and management makes it the preferred route.  Even if you don't think you have a need now, technology changes and in 2 years who is to say you won't end up with a reason to add another server - wouldn't it be nice to be able to just add a VM without worry about hardware or licensing costs?

Yes, there is one 2003 server per branch location.  They are all DC's running AD, DHCP, DNS, Print Server and File Services.  We have an existing 30 meg pipe for each branch.

Other than the reconfiguration of shared folders, printers and DHCP, I'm not sure what else there is to do?  Some of our applications have pointers to folders on the server.  Has anyone performed this task lately within the same parameters I've mentioned here.  If so, what were some of the issues, if any, you faced?

hecgomrec,

When you're talking about DHCP overlap, are you referring to having the same scopes on both DHCP servers?

Thank you hecgomrec.  Your answers pretty much covered the scope of this task.  Should be pretty simple.

Your Welcome!

Tip here!!!:     As you have to repeat the process several times, one per branch... it will be helpful if during the first one  you write down your steps as follow up guide for the next ones.

Good Luck!!!

You clearly have the direction you want.  I would ask hecgomrec to explain his logic on why "virtualization is not your best solution." ?  Do you disagree that a license is being thrown away?  Do you disagree that if business needs change already virtualized environments will make adapting to those changes easier?  I'm not trying to argue - I am trying to learn your perspective... perhaps it will sway my own and will leave both cheesebugah and others who come across this question better informed.

The reason I decided to recommend a non virtualized environment was because it is not needed.

They have only one machine running few roles on it, I don't see the need to add more work for something not needed at the moment, there is no exchange server on any of the branches, Remote desktop server, application server or any other that may require an extra server virtual or not.

The scenario is simple, DHCP and print server.  Yes I know this could be achieve with an appliance instead of a server, but this is how the "asker" wanted to solve his issue.  Like I mentioned there are several ways to handle branch communications but at the end is up to the "asker" to decide his best solution based in his own financial, experience, time frame, budget, etc.

I just provided a solution based on his request and actual scenario but I also mentioned before doing so that there were other solutions out there without even going for server hardware or software but an appliance capable of handling the communication with HQ and keeping one or more VLANs (DHCP), plus the print server, firewall, etc.

I don't hate virtualization but I do think is not the solution for every scenario.

As I said, I disagree - in my experience, being prepared for the what if with a little extra work today is a much safer investment.  I think the question that should be asked is WHY NOT virtualize?  Can you (as in the person implementing) justify NOT virtualizing?  Does it add a layer of complexity? Yes.  Does it add to management and deployment time?  Yes.  But how much?  In my opinion, once setup, the time required to manage the host is minimal - patching is about the only task really needed (and monitoring of hardware - which you should to do anyway).

While I do think you are correct that virtualization is not the solution for EVERY scenario, I disagree with the position that it shouldn't be the STARTING point.  Start with the plan to virtualize and determine if there's a reason you can't... don't start with the idea that you shouldn't and look for a reason to do it.