Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existance.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existance.

    Hi,
    Im attempting to do a staggered migration to 2010 from 2003.
    The idea being is that both will run at the same time, and i'll migrate mailboxes over as and when i can get the downtime for each department.

    Now, we've got the 2010 CAS in and a basic config on it.
    Ive got the relevant URLs set, and if i goto our 2003 server and set it to forms based auth, it'll also pass through 2003 clients when accessing internally.

    What do i need to do to the CAS server now to basically allow me to point all HTTP & ActiveSync traffic at the 2010 CAS and have it still function for users on the 2003 mailbox server? I know that the last step would hypothetically be to place the autodiscover record in the internal DNS...

    Or, do i need to get the hub transport in and configured before i can do what i need to achieve?

    Thanks in advance all.

  • #2
    Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

    You need both servers exposed to the Internet. Then you need to set a legacy URL. Exchange should do the rest for you. A hub transport server would be your next installation, although in smaller deployments this is often on the same server/s as the CAS role. Very rarely is it on its own dedicated server.

    Simon.
    --
    Simon Butler
    Exchange MVP

    Blog: http://blog.sembee.co.uk/
    More Exchange Content: http://exchange.sembee.info/
    Exchange Resources List: http://exbpa.com/
    In the UK? Hire me: http://www.sembee.co.uk/

    Sembee is a registered trademark, used here with permission.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existance.

      Legacy URL internally or externally? As the latter isn't possible....I have setup an internal DNS record for the internal name of 2003 server for legacy, but externally, it's not going to be possible unfortunately.

      We have the VMs ready and setup for the Hub transport and mailbox servers, as we wanted them separated.

      I'm planning on putting the hub transport in on Friday night, hopefully with the ability to then point all mail traffic on ISA to the HT, then http/active sync at CAS, and have it all play nice and still let the mailboxes that'll still be on 2003 at that point, exist there...with active sync, owa and outlook all working fine.
      Or, for ease of use, would i be better off doing the Mailbox server at the same time as the HT and just move all the mail boxes across in one go? The only issue then becomes outlook2007, and wether it'd pick up the new location of the users mailboxes(obviously auto discover would be in DNS).

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

        You can't co-exist for anything external if you can't have a legacy URL. To do co-existence you need two IP addresses, two separate host names.
        Exchange 2010 doesn't proxy to the older version, it simply redirects - that would therefore mean no OWA etc.

        Therefore you have two options only.
        1. Setup the legacy URL, SSL certificate, host name etc.
        2. Big bang everything across in one hit.

        As long as both the old and the new server are up, then Outlook will redirect to the new server automatically. Autodiscover will do the rest.

        I would also suggest that you configure a CAS array before you migrate any mailboxes. This is one of those settings that is easier to have at the start than trying to retro fit, even if you don't decide to use a multiple server environment.

        Simon.
        --
        Simon Butler
        Exchange MVP

        Blog: http://blog.sembee.co.uk/
        More Exchange Content: http://exchange.sembee.info/
        Exchange Resources List: http://exbpa.com/
        In the UK? Hire me: http://www.sembee.co.uk/

        Sembee is a registered trademark, used here with permission.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

          Originally posted by Sembee View Post
          Therefore you have two options only.
          1. Setup the legacy URL, SSL certificate, host name etc.
          2. Big bang everything across in one hit.

          As long as both the old and the new server are up, then Outlook will redirect to the new server automatically. Autodiscover will do the rest.

          I would also suggest that you configure a CAS array before you migrate any mailboxes. This is one of those settings that is easier to have at the start than trying to retro fit, even if you don't decide to use a multiple server environment.

          Simon.
          Right, one hit it is. Just gotta plan accordingly now...
          How do you mean 'configure a CAS array', surely it's just a case of configuring the CAS with the correct internal and external addresses, move the SSL certs, move the public folders, move the OAB generation then job done?

          Thanks for the help btw.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

            CAS array is basically a virtual Exchange server.
            If you were to ever use multiple servers then you would need a CAS array to ensure Outlook worked correctly.

            http://blog.sembee.co.uk/post/RPC-Cl...ess-Array.aspx

            So instead of the clients connecting to server.example.local, they would connect to outlook.example.local. Its one of those settings that is best applied at the start, has no effect on the operation of Exchange or the clients, but can make life a whole lot easier in the future.

            Simon.
            --
            Simon Butler
            Exchange MVP

            Blog: http://blog.sembee.co.uk/
            More Exchange Content: http://exchange.sembee.info/
            Exchange Resources List: http://exbpa.com/
            In the UK? Hire me: http://www.sembee.co.uk/

            Sembee is a registered trademark, used here with permission.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

              Originally posted by Sembee View Post
              CAS array is basically a virtual Exchange server.
              If you were to ever use multiple servers then you would need a CAS array to ensure Outlook worked correctly.

              http://blog.sembee.co.uk/post/RPC-Cl...ess-Array.aspx

              So instead of the clients connecting to server.example.local, they would connect to outlook.example.local. Its one of those settings that is best applied at the start, has no effect on the operation of Exchange or the clients, but can make life a whole lot easier in the future.

              Simon.
              Correct me if im wrong, but all the 'CAS Array' is, is a DNS entry is it not? At least thats what it sounds like....im assuming the point in it is to load balance CAS servers in future? In which case, not a chance im going down that route, my predicessor used DNS load balancing for the TS gateway here, and it NEVER works properly. No way im trusting that again.
              We're not a big organisation anyway, but if we wanted to do fault tolerance, we'd just use the HA feature of vSphere....or am i missing something obvious about CAS arrays?

              So, plan would be for the rest of the installation:
              Hub Transport installation, update HT to SP1 rollup 1, Mailbox installation, update MB to SP1 rollup 1, point ISA rules for SMTP, HTTP, HTTPS, ect; at CAS/HT, setup DNS autodiscover entry for the CAS, migrate mailboxes from 2003 to 2010, job done?
              Last edited by boomam; 6th February 2011, 13:20.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

                If someone tried to use DNS for high availability/load balancing I am not surprised it didn't work, because DNS doesn't provide any kind of load balancing. It doesn't know if the server is available or not.

                It is a DNS entry, which allows you to move the service around easily by simply adjusting the DNS entry. You don't have to touch the clients at all. If you introduce a second server, use a DAG or separate the roles from a single server out to multiple servers then it makes the implementation much easier. It takes 30 seconds to setup, but can save you hours of time at a later date. I implement it on every site I deploy, whether it is 5 users or 500.

                If you are running separate mailbox servers and hub/cas then I would be implementing a CAS array so that you can add additional CAS servers easily further down the line.

                Between server setup and mailbox migration you need to replicate the public folder content to the new server. You should also ensure that you have the SSL certificate in place. Mailboxes are the last thing that goes across data wise.

                Simon.
                --
                Simon Butler
                Exchange MVP

                Blog: http://blog.sembee.co.uk/
                More Exchange Content: http://exchange.sembee.info/
                Exchange Resources List: http://exbpa.com/
                In the UK? Hire me: http://www.sembee.co.uk/

                Sembee is a registered trademark, used here with permission.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

                  Originally posted by Sembee View Post
                  If someone tried to use DNS for high availability/load balancing I am not surprised it didn't work, because DNS doesn't provide any kind of load balancing. It doesn't know if the server is available or not.
                  Was thinking that myself.
                  The problem was that people would connect in do their stuff, disconnect, connect in again, and be on an entire different server! So many support calls about that.
                  So i stripped it out and stuck in RemoteApp instead, so far so good.

                  It is a DNS entry, which allows you to move the service around easily by simply adjusting the DNS entry. You don't have to touch the clients at all. If you introduce a second server, use a DAG or separate the roles from a single server out to multiple servers then it makes the implementation much easier. It takes 30 seconds to setup, but can save you hours of time at a later date. I implement it on every site I deploy, whether it is 5 users or 500.
                  Ok, im tempted to do it as its easy to do, whether i use it or not in future, obviously has benefits longer term.
                  So what exactly needs doing then? Is it just a DNS alias for the CAS server, then the autodiscovery pointed at that rather than the CAS servers name?

                  If you are running separate mailbox servers and hub/cas then I would be implementing a CAS array so that you can add additional CAS servers easily further down the line.
                  Thinking about it, it might be a good idea, as you say, small site, but a second CAS server was something possibly on the cards for one of our remote sites...

                  Between server setup and mailbox migration you need to replicate the public folder content to the new server. You should also ensure that you have the SSL certificate in place. Mailboxes are the last thing that goes across data wise.

                  Simon.
                  So:
                  Install HT
                  Update HT
                  Install mailbox
                  Update mailbox
                  Replicate public folders to 2010
                  Move OAB to 2010
                  Autodiscover record in DNS.
                  Move ISA rules to 2010
                  Test for a week or so for client errors
                  When tested, remove 2003 box?

                  Do you have much knowledge on storage performance for Exchange 2010 btw?

                  Thanks for all the input btw, very much appreciated.
                  Last edited by boomam; 6th February 2011, 15:29.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

                    CAS array is ONLY for the Outlook mapi bit.
                    It is not used for autodiscover, Outlook Anywhere etc. It should not resolve externally. Therefore you would leave everything else alone. Create the DNS entry (A record) point at CAS server, set the CAS Array on the databases and that is it. If you add in additional CAS servers at a later date, then you look at NLB or something to spread the load.

                    CAS arrays are AD site specific, so if you bring online another office, with its own mailbox and CAS servers, then you would have another CAS array for them - BUT if the CAS server in one site fails, you can change the DNS to point Outlook at the other CAS and it will work.

                    The migration plan on the surface seems fine. There is a lot more to it - I know of someone in the Exchange MVP community who has written a 200 page book on the subject.

                    As for storage performance - it is just the same as with previous versions. Put it on poor storage (like a single RAID 5 array) and it will suck. Exchange bottleneck is always storage and that is where careful design can pay off.

                    Simon.
                    --
                    Simon Butler
                    Exchange MVP

                    Blog: http://blog.sembee.co.uk/
                    More Exchange Content: http://exchange.sembee.info/
                    Exchange Resources List: http://exbpa.com/
                    In the UK? Hire me: http://www.sembee.co.uk/

                    Sembee is a registered trademark, used here with permission.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

                      Originally posted by Sembee View Post
                      CAS array is ONLY for the Outlook mapi bit.
                      It is not used for autodiscover, Outlook Anywhere etc. It should not resolve externally. Therefore you would leave everything else alone. Create the DNS entry (A record) point at CAS server, set the CAS Array on the databases and that is it. If you add in additional CAS servers at a later date, then you look at NLB or something to spread the load.
                      So for my purposes, an A Record that points 'outlook.domain.local' at our CAS, and an autodiscover record that points at the 'outlook.domain.local' record rather than directly at the CAS?

                      CAS arrays are AD site specific, so if you bring online another office, with its own mailbox and CAS servers, then you would have another CAS array for them - BUT if the CAS server in one site fails, you can change the DNS to point Outlook at the other CAS and it will work.
                      The way we've got our remote sites running, they appear as part of the same site, rather than as separate sites.

                      The migration plan on the surface seems fine. There is a lot more to it - I know of someone in the Exchange MVP community who has written a 200 page book on the subject.
                      Of course, just massively simplified, as theres no point going too indepth on the obvious. lol.

                      As for storage performance - it is just the same as with previous versions. Put it on poor storage (like a single RAID 5 array) and it will suck. Exchange bottleneck is always storage and that is where careful design can pay off.

                      Simon.
                      Even though 2010 has 90% less I/O need than 2003?
                      Basically we have our new Exch VMs sat on a SAN, the SAN has both high speed (15k RAID5 set) and a low speed (7.2k RAID5 set), is there a need to have all three Exchange servers (CAS, HT & Mailbox) on the high speed set?
                      What about if we install a DAG, does that need to be high speed?

                      Also, logs, I'm allocating 400Gb for datastores, do I need 400Gb for logs? Or is that being overcautious?
                      I've googled around for hours trying to work that one out, but its all "if but why where who wherefore", 'you need this size if you do this, but then if you sacrifice a goat you'll need this, but if that goat has a leg missing or a tail then you'll then need this'.
                      Theres no concrete answer! lol.

                      Thanks again for all the help.
                      Last edited by boomam; 7th February 2011, 16:05.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

                        With regards to logs - you will need to ensure that you have enough space for the migration. However the level required day to day is significantly less. You should ensure that you have enough space for a backup failure for five days (four day weekend cover basically).

                        While the storage performance has increased, it is still a bottleneck. What I see people doing is setting up a VMWARE system, putting it on RAID 5 then thinking that because they are using virtual disks, that somehow VMWARE will make it go just as quick as multiple RAID arrays. VMWARE doesn't do anything of the sort.
                        I can't comment on SAN performance, I haven't seen a SAN for almost 10 months.

                        You don't need an internal autodiscover record unless you have clients off the domain. Autodiscover internally uses the domain for the information, not DNS.

                        As for your AD site - you really need to consider a redesign. Unlike Exchange 2003, which has its own site designations, Exchange 2010 uses AD sites. Putting everything in to a single site is likely to cause you significant problems, with data going across you WAN unnecessarily. That would be DC data as well as Exchange data. You could find that all data from one site goes across the WAN simply to be delivered to another user in the same office.

                        Exchange 2010 is a complex product, particularly compared to Exchange 2003. It can show up deficiencies in AD design very quickly. It also requires significant skills that are only used during the design/setup phase.
                        Your best option may well be to engage a consultant to look at the entire structure to ensure that it will meet the needs of Exchange, particularly with a multiple site implementation.

                        Simon.
                        --
                        Simon Butler
                        Exchange MVP

                        Blog: http://blog.sembee.co.uk/
                        More Exchange Content: http://exchange.sembee.info/
                        Exchange Resources List: http://exbpa.com/
                        In the UK? Hire me: http://www.sembee.co.uk/

                        Sembee is a registered trademark, used here with permission.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

                          Originally posted by Sembee View Post
                          With regards to logs - you will need to ensure that you have enough space for the migration. However the level required day to day is significantly less. You should ensure that you have enough space for a backup failure for five days (four day weekend cover basically).
                          I'll stick with the 400Gb for now, and see how it goes, i can always downsize the disk at a later date.

                          While the storage performance has increased, it is still a bottleneck. What I see people doing is setting up a VMWARE system, putting it on RAID 5 then thinking that because they are using virtual disks, that somehow VMWARE will make it go just as quick as multiple RAID arrays. VMWARE doesn't do anything of the sort.
                          I can't comment on SAN performance, I haven't seen a SAN for almost 10 months.
                          I'll wack it on the faster array for safety then at the moment, as with the previous bit, i can change this easily at a later date.

                          You don't need an internal autodiscover record unless you have clients off the domain. Autodiscover internally uses the domain for the information, not DNS.
                          Is that new to 2010?
                          As in 2007, a fresh installation on a 10 day old domain at my last job, Outlook needed autodiscover to see the mailboxes...

                          As for your AD site - you really need to consider a redesign. Unlike Exchange 2003, which has its own site designations, Exchange 2010 uses AD sites. Putting everything in to a single site is likely to cause you significant problems, with data going across you WAN unnecessarily. That would be DC data as well as Exchange data. You could find that all data from one site goes across the WAN simply to be delivered to another user in the same office.
                          Theres little to no point to be honest.
                          The 3 sites we have are soon coming down to two, and the second site is a very small network consisting of a AP, printer & 5 laptops.

                          Exchange 2010 is a complex product, particularly compared to Exchange 2003. It can show up deficiencies in AD design very quickly. It also requires significant skills that are only used during the design/setup phase.
                          Your best option may well be to engage a consultant to look at the entire structure to ensure that it will meet the needs of Exchange, particularly with a multiple site implementation.

                          Simon.
                          Company doesnt have the funds to do that tbh, otherwise id jump at the chance, as its a good learning exercise.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

                            The lack of autodiscover record internally is not new for Exchange 2010. If you needed an autodiscover record on a previous installation then something wasn't correct for that installation, or it wasn't done correctly. Outlook will query the domain for the information. DNS autodiscover is only for external or off domain clients.

                            Its unfortunate when companies say that they don't have the budget to do something correctly.

                            I was told that once by a boss-man who had just purchased a new Aston Martin. I asked him if he was going to get his Aston Martin looked after by the guy over the road (who tinkered around with his 10 year old Ford). He said of course not. He got the message.

                            For most companies it is much cheaper to get a consultant in and done correctly at the start, then getting a consultant in to clean up the mess afterwards. With Exchange setup and configuration, most of the skills that you learn are completely useless to the day to day management of the product.

                            Simon.
                            --
                            Simon Butler
                            Exchange MVP

                            Blog: http://blog.sembee.co.uk/
                            More Exchange Content: http://exchange.sembee.info/
                            Exchange Resources List: http://exbpa.com/
                            In the UK? Hire me: http://www.sembee.co.uk/

                            Sembee is a registered trademark, used here with permission.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Exchange 2003 & 2010 co-existence.

                              Originally posted by Sembee View Post
                              The lack of autodiscover record internally is not new for Exchange 2010. If you needed an autodiscover record on a previous installation then something wasn't correct for that installation, or it wasn't done correctly. Outlook will query the domain for the information. DNS autodiscover is only for external or off domain clients.
                              Hmm....so what stops the clients connecting to the CAS's server name in DNS then? Little confused now...

                              For most companies it is much cheaper to get a consultant in and done correctly at the start, then getting a consultant in to clean up the mess afterwards. With Exchange setup and configuration, most of the skills that you learn are completely useless to the day to day management of the product.

                              Simon.
                              I completely agree, but im fortunate that my boss is being patient with me on this, as Exchange migrations are a new thing for me, fresh installs and day to day stuff, piece of cake, migrations, never done before.
                              Quite enjoying it, and im learning alot, a sizeable chunk off your good self.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X