Slashdot Mirror
Active Directory on Win2k or 2k3?
lordbry asks: "I am a Windows admin for a major university in a business computing area (if we have problems, people might not get paid). We have a Windows NT Domain, and are planning to migrate to Active Directory. One of my co-workers is pushing for doing this under Windows 2003. I, however, feel that (as with any M$ product) we should not even consider using 2003 for production anything until there is an SP 2 or 3, and that we should go with AD under Windows 2000. Does anyone have any advice, arguments, or horror stories that could help me make my case to the rest of my group, all of whom are somewhere in the middle? Does anyone think that 2003 is the way to go?"
Windows 2003 is 1000 times better than 2000. It's signficantly more stable, it's got the fantastic volume shadow copy (kinda like CVS...kinda), it's got DFS, and it's extremely well supported.
Don't think of it like a new Windows - it's actually Windows NT 5.2, which is heavily built upon 2000.
I recently upgraded to AD (well, 5 months ago...), and now Im wishing I went with 2003. Its not a big difference, but our test 2003 machines are a joy to use. Additionally, if you want to run the 2000 Server Adminpak on Windows XP, with the Exchange 2000 tools, its not fun to install - the 2003 tools work natively on an XP client.
There really is no reason not to go with 2003, given the choice.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
We went to 2k3 around the time it was released. The response around the office is more or less, "Fuck chevy this thing's a rock".
Fot shits and giggles we put it on a pentium 2 300 laptop with 300MB of ram, it was stable, fast, and useful. In all honesty it is a great prduct and a worthy successor to 2k.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
I've been through this twice now. Once recently and once about 8 months ago. The first one was an upgrade from NT -> 2003 and the second was an upgrade from a 2000 AD -> 2003 AD. Both times, I ended up MORE than happy that I went to 2003. The tools for 2003 beat the hell out of the tools for 2000. If you decide to add Exchange to the mix, Ex 2003 is more stable and has better features over 2000. All in all, if you're going new, there's no reason to wait for the .2 or .3.
I find W2K3 to be quicker and have more nifty options and features. It also depends on your client population, with XP being more easily manages under W2K3 with the stock GPO, copies, and templates provided.
At the same time I've had problems with W2K3 as a DNS/WINS server. And a DFS server. It took a long time and lots of digging to resolve those issues and it looked like it was the first time MS had come across a lot of the issues we had when we got in touch with them. Eventually worked out but it's never fun to be the first to find a bug in a critical service.
The other annoyance we've had with W2K3 is it's control over W2K clients. Things like IE settings that'd be pushed from our old domain controller or from IEAK stuff stopped working or worked oddly in W2K3. It would store security settings in two files, push only one, confuse clients, etc.
If I had to do it all over again ~today~ I'd go W2K3 because I've found the past few months worth of documentaiton and support to be much better than a year ago.
I should note that the first network I deployed W2K3 in was ~80 nodes. It was critical, 24 hour operation, Engineering intense, lots of storage, license servers, etc. So it wasn't trivial but it's not a University sized environment, not that many thousands of clients.
In conclusion.. I don't have a conclusion. I think I'd have to hear what services besides AD you'd want to run off of it. Do you run DNS, DFS, SFU, Licenses, TS, etc. off of the same servers?
Oh, if you do go W2K3, install the Resource Kit bundle right away, it's priceless for administration and scripting.
Anyhow, good luck, Cheers, -Pk
Um. AD using Windows 2003 is the service pack for the version of AD using Windows 2000.
It's not like they re-wrote it from scratch. Nor is it like AD (using 2000) is entirely new either; it was developed from the backend of Exchange's directory service, if I understand correctly.
Go with 2003, I haven't read of any particular defects of either AD or the server OS features under 2003, compared to 2000. And yes, things like Volume Shadow Copy, or whatever it's called, may make your life as an admin easier. Certainly, if you're running IIS sites, you'll appreciate the security of IIS 6 more than IIS 5.
I've loaded 33,000 into a Windows 2000 AD with some perl scripts I wrote. Takes several hours, but all went well.
What type of problems did you encounter?
Windows 2000 is almost EOL'd. Windows 2000 Support Cycle. Non-security updates end 3/31/05 (8 months from now) and security updates end on 3/31/07 - eight months from now. I'd go with 2003 since by the time you are done with the migration, 2000 will probably be at the end of its useful life and you'll be looking at going to 2003 anyways.
- fewer security patches (== longer uptime)
- way more flexible schema updates, especially in a large AD environment
- way more secure than Microsoft's pervious iterations right out of the box and in general operation
- generally faster (but that will depend on what else you've got running on it - hopefully just AD)
- much better command line administration (can do most everything from a command window)
Do yourself a favor and also grab ActiveState's perl distribution and, since you're already running a ludicrously expensive OS, buy their PerlNET disdtribution (part of the Perl Dev Kit - http://activestate.com/Products/Perl_Dev_Kit/pricAlso make sure you install the resource kit.
Mind the gap...
I wouldn't bother to listen to your argument if you are calling Microsoft "M$". That's biased, and so that doesn't help make rational decisions that are needed when you're dealing with a project of this magnitude. Leave the M$ WinBlowz speak for the IRC chatrooms.
Sorry to sound like a troll or spread flamebait, I just think this talk has to stop because it makes Apple, Linux, etc, users seem like biased morons.
I'd rather this be replied to harshly than modded down if you find what I said to be disagreeable.
I just migrated my workplace form NT4 to 2k3 Active Directory.
The process went without a hitch.
first we ghosted our pdc, that way we could return things to normal quickly, if the upgrade didnt work. we poped in the 2k3 cd, and went through like a normal install.
AD is tied to dns. chose your dns name now, its best if you control your own dns servers if you want to use your web domain, otherwise its a bit of a pain (but it works)
after the install completed dc promo ran and imported all our user and computer accounts. it might be best to do the housekeeping of unused users, groups etc. before migrating.
Adding additional controlers is easy, just install 2k3 and run dcpromo, and select add an aditional controler to domain. it will automaticly replicate for you.
Design your directory structure prior to migration.
and like all windows systems - when in doubt reboot. 2k3 is rock solid, but i had an issue where dns would not replicate properly, untill i reboted the first DC.
Also i might add that Microsofts Software update services (SUS) works amazingly well. it can be inforced with Group policy, and all your approved updates can be forced to your clients when you want them to be. Patch management is much simpler now.