Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exchange 2003 to 2007 - Big Change?

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

  • Exchange 2003 to 2007 - Big Change?

    Currently running Exchange 2003 Standard on a Windows Server 2003 Standard box.

    Need to install more memory etc., so was going to upgrade to Windows 2003 Enterprise 64-bit and Exchange 2003 Enterprise.

    However, as I need to buy new CALs for Exchange Enterprise, I was considering simply going to Windows 2008 R2 with Exchange 2007.

    Haven't had time to do a trial yet, so wanted some quick advice on whether it is a massive jump in terms of installing, managing, and whether my users would see any difference running Offce 2003.

    Obviously going to do a trial first but wanted some advice first, as if it's a big leap I will stick with 2003 for mow and make the upgrade leap later as a new project.

    Thanks

  • #2
    Re: Exchange 2003 to 2007 - Big Change?

    You should be moving direct to 2010, not 2007, and you will see some big improvements e.g. Archive mailboxes.

    Otherwise see my comment to your server thread -- same things apply.
    Tom Jones
    MCT, MCSE (2000:Security & 2003), MCSA:Security & Messaging, MCDBA, MCDST, MCITP(EA, EMA, SA, EDA, ES, CS), MCTS, MCP, Sec+
    PhD, MSc, FIAP, MIITT
    IT Trainer / Consultant
    Ossian Ltd
    Scotland

    ** Remember to give credit where credit is due and leave reputation points where appropriate **

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Exchange 2003 to 2010 - Big Change?

      I'm not sure why I typed 2007 the whole way through my post - I did mean 2010!

      Is this an "easy" upgrade from 2003 to 2010?

      Currently have a single server 2003 setup with approximately 300 users and around 22Gb database. All users connext from XP Pro SP2 running Office 2003 SP2 - unfortunately client OS/software will not be upgrading at this point so this has to work with that setup.

      I don't have a spare server to build on, so I would have to flatten the current server and rebuild on the same hardware.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Exchange 2003 to 2007 - Big Change?

        If you have to wipe the original and re-install you're pretty much talking about exporting all mailboxes to PST and then re-importing them. You will lose single instance doing that plus you run the risk of any issue causing a major outage.
        Any chance you could build a VM somewhere maybe? If you can swing to that and then back to the fresh box you may save a little space and reduce the risks. It also means you can co-exist and test everything on 2010. Make sure your backup software is updated to cope with the new version too.

        Will also have to add that this "so was going to upgrade to Windows 2003 Enterprise 64-bit and Exchange 2003 Enterprise." won't work as Exchange 2003 isn't supported on a 64bit OS.
        cheers
        Andy

        Please read this before you post:


        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Exchange 2003 to 2007 - Big Change?

          Originally posted by AndyJG247 View Post
          If you have to wipe the original and re-install you're pretty much talking about exporting all mailboxes to PST and then re-importing them. You will lose single instance doing that plus you run the risk of any issue causing a major outage.

          Any chance you could build a VM somewhere maybe? If you can swing to that and then back to the fresh box you may save a little space and reduce the risks. It also means you can co-exist and test everything on 2010. Make sure your backup software is updated to cope with the new version too.
          Thanks for the reply. The only machine I can even vaguely consider freeing up is an old Proliant DL380 G4 server. Need to do some work I hadn't planned on if I go down that route to free it up. I agree it would be nicer to not have to trash my existing machine first.

          If I go down this route I can build it as 2003 with Ex 2003 on and swing mailboxes over to it one weekend. Then build the 2k8/Ex 2010 server and migrate the next weekend.

          IF I can get a second server going with 2k3 on, is then migrating mailboxes etc. from the 2k3 server to a new 2010 server a simple process?

          Will also have to add that this "so was going to upgrade to Windows 2003 Enterprise 64-bit and Exchange 2003 Enterprise." won't work as Exchange 2003 isn't supported on a 64bit OS.
          Do you know, I never realised that! Just assumed that Exchange Enterprise would cope with 64-bit. Another excuse to aim for Exchange 2010 though I guess.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Exchange 2003 to 2007 - Big Change?

            Well "simple" is relative
            It's a little cowboy but do you have any other powerful servers that could run a reasonable spec virtual machine or is the G4 your only option? At the end of the day as long as you have an up to date backup of the DB you can always get DR installation of 2003 up and restored fairly quickly. 22GB shouldn't take too long in a worst case scenario.

            I would really recommend at least booting up VM workstation (or similar) and documenting/testing the migration without live data so you have it ready though.

            What spec is the existing server by the way?
            Exchange 2003 enterprise wouldn't give you anything more than standard edition in this environment. 2010 OWA is substantially better and, given decent hardware, exchange 2010 does perform better but what you already can easily cope. Is it unlikely you'll get any money for this project?
            cheers
            Andy

            Please read this before you post:


            Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Exchange 2003 to 2007 - Big Change?

              Exchange 2003 and 2007/2010 is a huge difference. As far as the users are concerned, they will not notice any difference in Outlook, OWA is very different.
              However the management changes are significant, and can take administrators some time to learn. If you are a GUI fan then you are going to be very upset - you cannot avoid the Command Line (PowerShell) with management of Exchange 2007 and higher.

              Just as an aside - throwing more than 2gb of RAM at Exchange 2003 isn't worth it - and can actually cause more problems. If you are seeing high memory use then that is by design. If the system is slow, then that can be caused by many factors - the most common of which is third party applications. The most common cause is anything from Symantec.

              With Exchange 2010, unless you need more than 4 databases then you can use standard edition. You aren't subject to the same limits as Exchange 2003 standard. Therefore it can be cheaper or more cost effective to buy Exchange 2010 plus CALs than Exchange 2010 Enterprise to be able to downgrade to Exchange 2003 Enterprise.

              However there is a lot to consider with Exchange 2010 deployment because it is a lot more complex product. Your best option for the design and setup is to engage a consultant. I spend most of my time cleaning up Exchange 2010 installations, and it is more expensive to get someone like me to do so after its gone live than to get it designed and installed correctly from the start.

              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


              • #8
                Re: Exchange 2003 to 2007 - Big Change?

                Originally posted by AndyJG247 View Post
                Well "simple" is relative
                It's a little cowboy but do you have any other powerful servers that could run a reasonable spec virtual machine or is the G4 your only option? At the end of the day as long as you have an up to date backup of the DB you can always get DR installation of 2003 up and restored fairly quickly. 22GB shouldn't take too long in a worst case scenario.

                I would really recommend at least booting up VM workstation (or similar) and documenting/testing the migration without live data so you have it ready though.

                What spec is the existing server by the way?
                Exchange 2003 enterprise wouldn't give you anything more than standard edition in this environment. 2010 OWA is substantially better and, given decent hardware, exchange 2010 does perform better but what you already can easily cope. Is it unlikely you'll get any money for this project?
                Yes, unfortunately the G4 is the only server I can free up, and it will be a push to do that.

                You're right, I can do a quick DR install of 2003 and get the DBs copied back over and up and running.

                My workstation is quite powerful and with some extra RAM I should be able to get a VM up and running to trial it - as long as I can find the time for that.

                The server 2010 will be going on is a Proliant G5 with two dual-core CPUs (can't remember speed right not), currently 4GB RAM but it will be upgraded to 16GB RAM for this project.

                My problem at the moment with 2003 is performance - the users are really seeing speed issues on mail, so hopefully going to 2010 and a lot more accessible memory should solve that for them.

                All client suse Outlook 2003 to access mail (either on the workstations or through Citrix). No one currently uses OWA, but we have a number of iPhone users who get push mail from the server.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Exchange 2003 to 2007 - Big Change?

                  Originally posted by Sembee View Post
                  Just as an aside - throwing more than 2gb of RAM at Exchange 2003 isn't worth it - and can actually cause more problems. If you are seeing high memory use then that is by design. If the system is slow, then that can be caused by many factors - the most common of which is third party applications. The most common cause is anything from Symantec.
                  Users is Outlook 2003 are seeing performance issues opening mail and attachments etc.

                  No Symantec, but we do have Mcafee on there (only non-MS product on the server). Have tried stopping the Mcafee services and it makes no noticeable difference to the performance.

                  Server has 4GB RAM with relevant switches in Boot.ini. RAM is constantly going high on store.exe and causing it to page which I suspect is part of the problem.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Exchange 2003 to 2007 - Big Change?

                    You haven't said how many users you are pushing at the system, but if the core hardware isn't configured correctly then moving to Exchange 2010 isn't going to help.

                    Back before Exchange 2007 was released, the Exchange MVPs would basically brag on how many users they can get on to a single Exchange server. 500 users on 2gb of RAM with correctly provisioned storage was easily possible.

                    Are you using Outlook in cached mode? If so then attachment and other speed issues have nothing to do with Exchange. Citrix doesn't use cached mode so can increase the load.

                    Stopping services like McAfee doesn't show it is not the cause of the problems. Only its removal and then rebooting the server would do that.

                    However, I would suggest removing RAM. People often ignore me on that, give me funny looks etc. Exchange 2003 can't cope with it, even with the various switches. I have seen many many times a poor performing server which improves significantly by reducing the memory. Exchange 2003 is a 32 bit application and therefore it is best at between 1 and 2gb.

                    Throwing memory and RAM at the system in Exchange 2007/2010 isn't going to help if you running everything on poor storage. Storage always has and always will be the bottleneck because Exchange is a database.

                    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 to 2007 - Big Change?

                      Originally posted by Sembee View Post
                      You haven't said how many users you are pushing at the system, but if the core hardware isn't configured correctly then moving to Exchange 2010 isn't going to help.

                      Back before Exchange 2007 was released, the Exchange MVPs would basically brag on how many users they can get on to a single Exchange server. 500 users on 2gb of RAM with correctly provisioned storage was easily possible.

                      Are you using Outlook in cached mode? If so then attachment and other speed issues have nothing to do with Exchange. Citrix doesn't use cached mode so can increase the load.

                      Stopping services like McAfee doesn't show it is not the cause of the problems. Only its removal and then rebooting the server would do that.

                      However, I would suggest removing RAM. People often ignore me on that, give me funny looks etc. Exchange 2003 can't cope with it, even with the various switches. I have seen many many times a poor performing server which improves significantly by reducing the memory. Exchange 2003 is a 32 bit application and therefore it is best at between 1 and 2gb.

                      Throwing memory and RAM at the system in Exchange 2007/2010 isn't going to help if you running everything on poor storage. Storage always has and always will be the bottleneck because Exchange is a database.

                      Simon.
                      Approximately 300 users. Most users have 50MB mailboxes or thereabouts, a few have 500MB to 1GB+. Anything from 100-200 users on the system at any one time. Outlook is not in cached mode.

                      Server at present is as follows:

                      HP Proliant DL380 G5
                      4GB RAM (4 x 1GB DDR2 PC2-5300 667MHz)
                      2 x Xeon 5160 3.0GHz Dual Core Processors

                      2 x 15k RPM disks in RAID 1+0 for system
                      2 x 15k RPM disks in RAID 1+0 for database
                      2 x 15k RPM disks in RAID 1+0 for logs

                      Boot.ini switches: /fastdetect /3GB /USERVA=3030 /NoExecute=OptOut

                      Windows Server 2003 Standard SP2
                      Exchange 2003 Standard SP2
                      Mcafee VirusScan 8.5i (patch
                      Mcafee GroupShield for Exchange 7 (patch 1)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Exchange 2003 to 2007 - Big Change?

                        That storage configuration shouldn't be giving you any performance issues. That is about as fast as you can get.

                        On the other hand, I have seen Groupshield cause significant performance problems, and the too much RAM will also be a concern.
                        I suspect that if you removed Groupshield (disabling it is not enough), removed RAM to get it to 2gb and ensured the server had the latest support pack from HP installed, then you would see most issues go away. Moving to Exchange 2007/2010 isn't going to help a great deal, because the only way that you will get more performance out of the system is by using more RAID arrays so the database can be spit up.

                        If I was asked to look at the system from a performance point of view, then above three recommendations is what I would make.
                        If you then find that things improve, you can look at perhaps putting Groupshield back on.

                        I understand that people are always wary about removing products like Groupshield, unfortunately third party apps like AV/Antispam are the number one cause of performance issues with Exchange.

                        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 to 2007 - Big Change?

                          Originally posted by Sembee View Post
                          That storage configuration shouldn't be giving you any performance issues. That is about as fast as you can get.

                          On the other hand, I have seen Groupshield cause significant performance problems, and the too much RAM will also be a concern.
                          I suspect that if you removed Groupshield (disabling it is not enough), removed RAM to get it to 2gb and ensured the server had the latest support pack from HP installed, then you would see most issues go away. Moving to Exchange 2007/2010 isn't going to help a great deal, because the only way that you will get more performance out of the system is by using more RAID arrays so the database can be spit up.

                          If I was asked to look at the system from a performance point of view, then above three recommendations is what I would make.
                          If you then find that things improve, you can look at perhaps putting Groupshield back on.

                          I understand that people are always wary about removing products like Groupshield, unfortunately third party apps like AV/Antispam are the number one cause of performance issues with Exchange.

                          Simon.
                          Thanks Simon

                          I'll schedule some downtime and drop the RAM to 2GB as well as uninstalling Groupshield.

                          In the long run I think I should go to 2010 - after all, we are 7 years years behind and things have moved on.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Exchange 2003 to 2007 - Big Change?

                            Moving to a later version is something that should be done, but you need to do it for the right reasons. To resolve issues where issues shouldn't exist is not really one of them.
                            One of the key things that I look to do before any migration is ensure that the existing platform is working correctly, unless it has problems that would only be resolved by a rebuild/replacement of the hardware. Otherwise the migration can be significantly complicated - as if it isn't bad enough going from 2003 to 2007/2010 era products.

                            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 to 2007 - Big Change?

                              Originally posted by Sembee View Post
                              Moving to a later version is something that should be done, but you need to do it for the right reasons. To resolve issues where issues shouldn't exist is not really one of them.
                              One of the key things that I look to do before any migration is ensure that the existing platform is working correctly, unless it has problems that would only be resolved by a rebuild/replacement of the hardware. Otherwise the migration can be significantly complicated - as if it isn't bad enough going from 2003 to 2007/2010 era products.

                              Simon.
                              I totally agree - certainly don't want to upgrade with unknown problems to resolve on my 2k3 system.

                              Not as important I think (personally) when doing a full rebuild and upgarde, but I don't want to just abandon it without getting to the bottom of it - especially as we will continue to use Groupshield and if that's the cause of the current problems then I need to know that before going forward with an upgraded platform.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X