Storage Server(s) and DFS replication in WIn2K domain - Storage

This is a discussion on Storage Server(s) and DFS replication in WIn2K domain - Storage ; I have an existing Win2K domain with a solitary domain controller. For reasons I won't go into, we need to migrate all "important" company data onto onsite and offsite storage, and the solution decided upon is a pair of Win2003 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Storage Server(s) and DFS replication in WIn2K domain

  1. Storage Server(s) and DFS replication in WIn2K domain


    I have an existing Win2K domain with a solitary domain controller.

    For reasons I won't go into, we need to migrate all "important" company data
    onto onsite and offsite storage, and the solution decided upon is a pair of
    Win2003 R2 Storage Server boxes. The sites are connected with a 100Mbps
    fiberoptic line.

    The intent is to have one storage server act as the "primary" repository fpr
    company data, backup files, etc, and the second merely act as an offsite
    mirror for disaster recovery.

    Because the sites are connected with what amounts to a LAN, the initial
    intent was to use DFS replication on the servers, mirror the directory
    structures accordingly, and let the OS deal with all the offsite storage
    issues, replication, etc. etc. The applications that use the biggest chunk of
    data will need to point to the primary server, and if it suffers a
    catastrophic failure we could live with manually pointing the client software
    at the secondary server. So we don't feel compelled to set up a namespace and
    the additional server-based functions it requires. At least not right now.

    The ultimate goal basically is pictured in the online DFS help file (the
    replication group image).


    My questions:

    The "DFS Replication Requirements" section of online help indicates that we
    must run adprep.exe /forestprep from one of the Win2003 R2 CDs. Because there
    isn't a specific illustration of doing this in the context of a Win2K domain,
    am I going to be okay doing this? Does it make a difference running it from
    the storage server box versus directly on the domain controller?


    There is a relatively large volume of data (well, what we used to think was
    a large volume of data) in the range of 100 GB that will eventually be
    migrated to the Storage Servers and DFS folders. Is it best to move the files
    to the primary server and let it replicate to the secondary? Or manually copy
    to both to start?


    What happens when the domain controller is rebooted / off / crashes?


    Eventually we want to move off of the Win2K domain and onto a Win 2003 R2
    domain structure. How much more painful will having DFS in place make this
    migration? In other words, would it be seriously worth my while to do the
    Win2K to Win2003 migration first? (Having done this before, I am not
    relishing the idea. Our business need is to get the storage issues handled
    first).


    Thanks in advance for all the helpful advice.

    --
    GG Smith

  2. Re: Storage Server(s) and DFS replication in WIn2K domain

    > The "DFS Replication Requirements" section of online help indicates that
    > we
    > must run adprep.exe /forestprep from one of the Win2003 R2 CDs. Because
    > there
    > isn't a specific illustration of doing this in the context of a Win2K
    > domain,
    > am I going to be okay doing this? Does it make a difference running it
    > from
    > the storage server box versus directly on the domain controller?



    You need to run adprep from the first CD of the R2 set on the schema master
    for your existing domain to prepare the Win 2k domain for Win 2k3, then you
    need to run adprep from the second disk of the R2 set to prepare the domain
    for the updated R2 features. From your post you need to run both adpreps on
    your existing Win 2k DC.

    > There is a relatively large volume of data (well, what we used to think
    > was
    > a large volume of data) in the range of 100 GB that will eventually be
    > migrated to the Storage Servers and DFS folders. Is it best to move the
    > files
    > to the primary server and let it replicate to the secondary? Or manually
    > copy
    > to both to start?


    You can prestage the data by restoring using backup software or robocopy the
    data to the new server. If you let it replicate it may take a few days.

    > Eventually we want to move off of the Win2K domain and onto a Win 2003 R2
    > domain structure. How much more painful will having DFS in place make this
    > migration? In other words, would it be seriously worth my while to do the
    > Win2K to Win2003 migration first? (Having done this before, I am not
    > relishing the idea. Our business need is to get the storage issues handled
    > first).



    Actually for DFSR to work both servers need to be Win 2k3 R2. After running
    adprep you've just about done everything you need to do to move to Win 2k3
    except for upgrading your existing DC to Win 2k3. Upgrade it and you are
    done. The two servers in the DFSR replication group have already been
    upgraded. You don't have to touch them. You are 2/3 of the way there.

    hth
    DDS


    "Geoff" wrote in
    message news:8DF138C1-4173-4147-AABB-C973D4C02C63@microsoft.com...
    >
    > I have an existing Win2K domain with a solitary domain controller.
    >
    > For reasons I won't go into, we need to migrate all "important" company
    > data
    > onto onsite and offsite storage, and the solution decided upon is a pair
    > of
    > Win2003 R2 Storage Server boxes. The sites are connected with a 100Mbps
    > fiberoptic line.
    >
    > The intent is to have one storage server act as the "primary" repository
    > fpr
    > company data, backup files, etc, and the second merely act as an offsite
    > mirror for disaster recovery.
    >
    > Because the sites are connected with what amounts to a LAN, the initial
    > intent was to use DFS replication on the servers, mirror the directory
    > structures accordingly, and let the OS deal with all the offsite storage
    > issues, replication, etc. etc. The applications that use the biggest chunk
    > of
    > data will need to point to the primary server, and if it suffers a
    > catastrophic failure we could live with manually pointing the client
    > software
    > at the secondary server. So we don't feel compelled to set up a namespace
    > and
    > the additional server-based functions it requires. At least not right now.
    >
    > The ultimate goal basically is pictured in the online DFS help file (the
    > replication group image).
    >
    >
    > My questions:
    >
    > The "DFS Replication Requirements" section of online help indicates that
    > we
    > must run adprep.exe /forestprep from one of the Win2003 R2 CDs. Because
    > there
    > isn't a specific illustration of doing this in the context of a Win2K
    > domain,
    > am I going to be okay doing this? Does it make a difference running it
    > from
    > the storage server box versus directly on the domain controller?
    >
    >
    > There is a relatively large volume of data (well, what we used to think
    > was
    > a large volume of data) in the range of 100 GB that will eventually be
    > migrated to the Storage Servers and DFS folders. Is it best to move the
    > files
    > to the primary server and let it replicate to the secondary? Or manually
    > copy
    > to both to start?
    >
    >
    > What happens when the domain controller is rebooted / off / crashes?
    >
    >
    > Eventually we want to move off of the Win2K domain and onto a Win 2003 R2
    > domain structure. How much more painful will having DFS in place make this
    > migration? In other words, would it be seriously worth my while to do the
    > Win2K to Win2003 migration first? (Having done this before, I am not
    > relishing the idea. Our business need is to get the storage issues handled
    > first).
    >
    >
    > Thanks in advance for all the helpful advice.
    >
    > --
    > GG Smith




+ Reply to Thread