Windows Server 2016
-
Why would you upgrade DCs anyway? I would build new 2016 VMs from scratch and promote them and then demote the 2012 R2 Severs.
As far as setting other servers up with 2016, unless they are microsoft based services, I think it's too early to expect vendors to support software on 2016.
-
The only reason to even consider upgrading is to be strictly compliant with the terms of licensing.
-
@Kelly said in Windows Server 2016:
The only reason to even consider upgrading is to be strictly compliant with the terms of licensing.
If I had to go this route, I would demote and upgrade one server. Then promote to a DC and see how it goes for a few weeks before i touched the other DCs.
-
@IRJ said in Windows Server 2016:
@Kelly said in Windows Server 2016:
The only reason to even consider upgrading is to be strictly compliant with the terms of licensing.
If I had to go this route, I would demote and upgrade one server. Then promote to a DC and see how it goes for a few weeks before i touched the other DCs.
I think that he means if you have only one and no licensing for a second.
-
I have to think MS is flexible in this stuff. You can't upgrade Exchange for example - you must migrate it to a new server. I suppose legally they could be saying, oh you're moving to a new Exchange server? then you must have the old license and the new one, and the new one can't be an upgrade license, it has to be a full new as in second license, but really I doubt that.
-
I'd have thought you only need to licence an operating system or an application when it is operational. So in the case of Exchange, for example, if you only ever have on Exchange server in use, you can set up the new server without the need for licences, then effectively move the licence from the old server to the new one during the go-live migration. I assume this is part of the reason for a grace period when it comes to activation. If they wanted to be strict, they could force you to activate during the install.
-
I think the definition of active becomes an issue. Active means "running" not "accepting email" as far as I know. But there is normally a grace period for transferring over.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016:
I think the definition of active becomes an issue. Active means "running" not "accepting email" as far as I know. But there is normally a grace period for transferring over.
it's worse than that - Even if it was active means accepting email, rarely is an environment so small that the migration would be done while no email was moving between both servers. So in that case, both servers would be online and working at the same time while you're migrating.
-
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016:
I think the definition of active becomes an issue. Active means "running" not "accepting email" as far as I know. But there is normally a grace period for transferring over.
it's worse than that - Even if it was active means accepting email, rarely is an environment so small that the migration would be done while no email was moving between both servers. So in that case, both servers would be online and working at the same time while you're migrating.
Depends, if you cut over with DNS you have that issue. But if you do with the firewall, you do not.
-
I mean internally. I suppose if you do a weekend cutover and move all mailboxes off one server and onto another, then you have only one in use at a time... But that seems to be the exception instead of the rule. Most people would migrate many boxes in a day, then more the next, and so on... in these cases, both servers are fully in use, at least by the end users.
-
Thankfully I do not have Exchange in house, and I would only be doing this process with DCs.
