Seize FSMO Roles from 2003 to 2000 DC ?

Hi. We currently have two DCs, one Windows 2003 and one Windows 2000. The
2003 server holds all FSMO roles and both DCs are GCs. The 2003 server has
failed and we are waiting on replacement hardware. I would like to seize
the FSMO roles to the 2000 DC, cleanup the references left over from the
failed 2003 DC, install 2003 on the new server with the same name and IP as
the failed DC.

Can anyone confirm:
1. Is there any problems with seizing the FSMO roles from a 2003 to a 2000
DC ?
2. Can anyone recommend whether it is better for me to seize the FSMO roles
and reinstall the failed DC from scratch, or whether I should do a
non-authorative restore of the failed DC WITHOUT seizing the roles.

Any other advice on what or how I should resolve this problem would be
appreciated.

Thanks,
Alex.

Here is what I would do:

Clean up your metadata of the lost dc.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=555846&SD=tech

Seize the fsmo roles to the Windows 2000 machine if you plan on using the
same name for the replacement dc. If the name is going to be different I
would wait and seize after the new dc is promoted and run on the 2003 DC. I
haven't seized fsmo roles to a dc that has the exact same name as the old in
this particular fashion. I am unsure if there would be any issues (For
safeties sake) that is why I would seize on the 2000 DC if the name is going
to be the same.

When the new dc hardware arrives install 2003, promote and move/seize the
fsmo roles to the 2003 DC.

--
Paul Bergson
MVP - Directory Services
MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT

http://www.pbbergs.com

Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

"Alex" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi. We currently have two DCs, one Windows 2003 and one Windows 2000.
> The 2003 server holds all FSMO roles and both DCs are GCs. The 2003
> server has failed and we are waiting on replacement hardware. I would
> like to seize the FSMO roles to the 2000 DC, cleanup the references left
> over from the failed 2003 DC, install 2003 on the new server with the same
> name and IP as the failed DC.
>
> Can anyone confirm:
> 1. Is there any problems with seizing the FSMO roles from a 2003 to a
> 2000 DC ?
> 2. Can anyone recommend whether it is better for me to seize the FSMO
> roles and reinstall the failed DC from scratch, or whether I should do a
> non-authorative restore of the failed DC WITHOUT seizing the roles.
>
> Any other advice on what or how I should resolve this problem would be
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex.

Hi Paul. Thanks for your advice, that sounds the best way to proceed. I
didn't think there was any problems seizing roles from 2003 to 2000 but
wanted to double check. We would also like to retain the name so cleaning
up the metadata and then a fresh install sounds better than attempting to do
a non-authorative restore.

Thanks,
Alex.


"Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbergson@allete_nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Here is what I would do:
>
> Clean up your metadata of the lost dc.
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=555846&SD=tech
>
> Seize the fsmo roles to the Windows 2000 machine if you plan on using the
> same name for the replacement dc. If the name is going to be different I
> would wait and seize after the new dc is promoted and run on the 2003 DC.
> I haven't seized fsmo roles to a dc that has the exact same name as the
> old in this particular fashion. I am unsure if there would be any issues
> (For safeties sake) that is why I would seize on the 2000 DC if the name
> is going to be the same.
>
> When the new dc hardware arrives install 2003, promote and move/seize the
> fsmo roles to the 2003 DC.
>
> --
> Paul Bergson
> MVP - Directory Services
> MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
> 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT
>
> http://www.pbbergs.com
>
> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
> "Alex" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi. We currently have two DCs, one Windows 2003 and one Windows 2000.
>> The 2003 server holds all FSMO roles and both DCs are GCs. The 2003
>> server has failed and we are waiting on replacement hardware. I would
>> like to seize the FSMO roles to the 2000 DC, cleanup the references left
>> over from the failed 2003 DC, install 2003 on the new server with the
>> same name and IP as the failed DC.
>>
>> Can anyone confirm:
>> 1. Is there any problems with seizing the FSMO roles from a 2003 to a
>> 2000 DC ?
>> 2. Can anyone recommend whether it is better for me to seize the FSMO
>> roles and reinstall the failed DC from scratch, or whether I should do a
>> non-authorative restore of the failed DC WITHOUT seizing the roles.
>>
>> Any other advice on what or how I should resolve this problem would be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex.
>
>

Yeah so seize the FSMOs and do a metadata cleanup.

Load the new DC from scratch and dcpromo it in - don't do a restore.

--
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP - Directory Services

www.briandesmond.com


"Alex" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi. We currently have two DCs, one Windows 2003 and one Windows 2000.
> The 2003 server holds all FSMO roles and both DCs are GCs. The 2003
> server has failed and we are waiting on replacement hardware. I would
> like to seize the FSMO roles to the 2000 DC, cleanup the references left
> over from the failed 2003 DC, install 2003 on the new server with the same
> name and IP as the failed DC.
>
> Can anyone confirm:
> 1. Is there any problems with seizing the FSMO roles from a 2003 to a
> 2000 DC ?
> 2. Can anyone recommend whether it is better for me to seize the FSMO
> roles and reinstall the failed DC from scratch, or whether I should do a
> non-authorative restore of the failed DC WITHOUT seizing the roles.
>
> Any other advice on what or how I should resolve this problem would be
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex.