Domain/Server Upgrade Options
-
So as everyone here knows, I need to upgrade our domain off of Server 2003. I want to do this sooner than later (AKA, immediately) so I've been going through some options and talking with a few people offline.
Basically we have a simple setup, ~15 users. Servers are just used for the basics ... AD, file/print server, DHCP, etc..
These are the options I think are available. Would love some feedback on what YOU would do here.
OPTION 1
Buy 1 copy of Server 2016 and install 2 new VMs, upgrade the domain, move the data/services, retire old VMs.
Upside: Easiest route
Downside: Cost (~1500). Also would have DCs doing multiple jobs (AKA holding data) due to keeping licensing costs down.OPTION 2
Migrate away from Microsoft servers and install CentOS servers for everything. Use Samba instead of AD.
Upside: Free and gets us away from MS licensing. Some people (such as @scottalanmiller) say I will not even notice a difference
Downside: Does not seem particularly easy based on articles I have found online. Domain will be stuck at 2008 levels.OPTION 3
Get rid of the on-prem stuff and migrate fully to the cloud.
NOTE: this is not currently an option I am looking intoI would be interested to hear everyone's opinion on what they would do, and also any other options that might be out there. Or, of course, if I am missing something.
And ... go!
-
I would go for option 2 although I'm sure that seems very daunting. If I can ever avoid having DC's having to be more than just a DC I will. It creates nothing but problems for you later down the road--some of which I'm trying to mitigate now, here.
-
Do you need central authentication at all? Seems like you could easily script this to add users to new installs, especially if there are only 15 or so.
Have you looked at AzureAD to mange Windows Authentication? Seems like that would be an option for this.
Then you could move to something like Sharepoint Online or OneDrive for Business to host your files. You could get the E3 plan which would include 1TB/User of ODfB, Sharepoint Online, Office, Email, as well as AzureAD. For $3600/year I think you'd come out ahead when all is said and done.
If you have to host on-site then you could easily do one of the many pre-built SMB *nix based servers that are in the community. I can't remember the names off the top of my head but they are around. They allow you to do a GUI wizard to bring up a new Samba4 domain controller, setup file services, print services, etc.
-
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Domain will be stuck at 2008 levels
Does this really matter? You're currently on Server 2003 obviously you have no use for the features that have been recently introduced.
-
Option 2) Would salt be a good alternative instead of Samba?
Option 3) AzureAD could be another viable option for something like this, along with all of the additional features, such as SharePoint, Skype, Email, OneDrive, etc. But are those features worth more than the $3,600 / year to the company? That would be the question for you to ask the stakeholders.
-
@coliver Zentyal, Nethserver, SME Server are the SMB Linux servers that give you a Web Interface for setting up an AD Samba Domain, shares etc. These are just the three I know of off the top of my head.
SME Server: http://wiki.contribs.org
Netherver: https://www.nethserver.org/
Zentyal: http://www.zentyal.org/ -
@PenguinWrangler said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@coliver Zentyal, Nethserver, SME Server are the SMB Linux servers that give you a Web Interface for setting up an AD Samba Domain, shares etc.
Those are the ones!
-
@coliver I like SME Server. Espcially if you just need central authentication, and shares. If you need more complex features I would lean to nethserver, which borrows heavily from SME Server.
-
@coliver said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Domain will be stuck at 2008 levels
Does this really matter? You're currently on Server 2003 obviously you have no use for the features that have been recently introduced.
Good point.
-
Option 4: NethServer
-
@NerdyDad said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Option 2) Would salt be a good alternative instead of Samba?
Option 3) AzureAD could be another viable option for something like this, along with all of the additional features, such as SharePoint, Skype, Email, OneDrive, etc. But are those features worth more than the $3,600 / year to the company? That would be the question for you to ask the stakeholders.
Salt alone doesn't replace SAMBA. Salt can replace the GPO portion of Windows AD, but not the file share part. So even if not using the SAMBA AD features, assuming Bill doesn't move to something like NextCoud, he'd still need SAMBA for file shares.
-
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@coliver said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Domain will be stuck at 2008 levels
Does this really matter? You're currently on Server 2003 obviously you have no use for the features that have been recently introduced.
Good point.
I've told you that several times.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@coliver said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Domain will be stuck at 2008 levels
Does this really matter? You're currently on Server 2003 obviously you have no use for the features that have been recently introduced.
Good point.
I've told you that several times.
Good point.
-
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@coliver said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Domain will be stuck at 2008 levels
Does this really matter? You're currently on Server 2003 obviously you have no use for the features that have been recently introduced.
Good point.
I've told you that several times.
Good point.
I really feel that this has become a rule of thumb at this point... if you are moving up from Server 2003 AD today, the answer is Samba for AD only, no Windows. There will be exceptions, it can't quite be a best practice, but for all intents and purposes, if you are still on 2003, Windows should be simply ruled out as the next step. It just doesn't make sense for a load of reasons.
-
FFS, just spin up NethServer, or whatever that other common one is people have mentioned, and move on already.
Don't try and do this piecemeal.
You do not know what you are doing and will just make it harder on yourself.
So spin up a complete package to handle your DHCP/DNS/AD.
Then spin up a separate instance for a file share.
-
@JaredBusch said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
FFS, just spin up NethServer, or whatever that other common one is people have mentioned, and move on already.
Don't try and do this piecemeal.
You do not know what you are doing and will just make it harder on yourself.
So spin up a complete package to handle your DHCP/DNS/AD.
Then spin up a separate instance for a file share.
And it is free. It's easier to solve the problem than to discuss it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@JaredBusch said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
FFS, just spin up NethServer, or whatever that other common one is people have mentioned, and move on already.
Don't try and do this piecemeal.
You do not know what you are doing and will just make it harder on yourself.
So spin up a complete package to handle your DHCP/DNS/AD.
Then spin up a separate instance for a file share.
And it is free. It's easier to solve the problem than to discuss it.
I like discussing things!
-
Scott, Why do you recommend a product like nethServer, but not the NAS solutions that you roll yourself?
-
@Dashrender said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Scott, Why do you recommend a product like nethServer, but not the NAS solutions that you roll yourself?
You mean that you DON'T roll yourself? Rolling your own is great. It's getting something like FreeNAS that is a problem.
The biggest issues are around statefulness. FreeNAS is hugeles stateful, Netserver is trivially so. A FreeNAS failure means bit time outage and likely data loss. A Nethserver outage is normally an inconvenience. Recreating storage by hand is essentially impossible. Recreating AD by hand is an annoying afternoon.
-
If your linux experience is anything like mine option 1 is probably the best route. If you've got a few years of experience under your belt I'd go 2 because I hate microsoft and a pox upon their tax.
