If your CNE knew what he was doing, Netware search mappings (basically extensions to the “path=” statement) began and “Z:” and worked backwards. Like God intended them to J Bud Durland | Director of Information Technology Direct: 518.324.4850 | Cell: 518.726.0967 | Fax: 518.561.0017 | [email protected] 1 Plant St., Plattsburgh, NY 12901 Website | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of geoff_taylor geoff_taylor Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 10:23 To: ntsysadm <[email protected]>; Kurt Buff <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Advice: migrate to new file server LOL. I use(d) T: because in addition to scripts some tools started grabbing backwards from Z: in something that probably came over from the Netware days. All us old has beens will now go back to our rest. ZZZZZZ (another good use for Z's) ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Kurt Buff <[email protected]> Date: January 29, 2018 at 10:23 PM
Youngsters these days... If I change the DVD/CD drive letter, I change it to Y:, because long ago, under some really old version of windows (3.1? wfwg 3.1x? I'm getting old - get off my lawn) logon scripts used Z:. You can find a vague reference to it here: http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/samba/book/ch06_06.html Heh. Kurt On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Dave Lum <[email protected]> wrote: > My typical buildout: > > Anything with a user share (other than a domain controller) gets a separate > volume thn the OS and the files live there. Database servers get at least two > additional (logs for one, DB for the other). Server hosting applications with > a lot of read/writes and or file growth get an additional volume as this > allows easy movement/growth/reallocation of data volumes without impacting > the host OS. Doing a file recovery can be simplified with this setup as > there's lower risk of restoring the wrong applicaiotn file/setting* > > Single volume systems are infrastructure stuff like domain controllers, DHCP > servers, and print server (depending on its load and if it's not also a file > server). > > My OCD also sets the DVD drive to Z: so adding other drive letters is > contiguous. > > Dave > * This is probably legacy thinking as I haven't run into this in many, many > years. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Kurt Buff > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 2:10 PM > To: ntsysadm <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Advice: migrate to new file server > > Don't know about everybody, but I do it - because I hate it when someone > copies a ton of big files to the driver that data shares with the OS, and the > machine chokes. Makes for a very unpleasant time for the users. > > I've also had to do this on machines with hyperactive print queues. > Now, if I'm building a print server, the spool directory goes on a separate > partition - doesn't really matter how big the partition is, even just a few > gigs, as long as it doesn't share the OS partition. > > Kurt > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Gantry Zettler <[email protected]> wrote: >> "I'm hoping that the data is on a separate partition from the OS. >> That's pretty critical. " >> >> Is this what everyone else does? Even on VMs? >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Melvin Backus >> <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Ditto. I usually do this over a span of days or weeks. Big initial >>> copy, then incrementals periodically depending on normal usage, etc. >>> Last pass as I’m ready to make the move. By that time we’re talking >>> about a few minutes because everything should be the same anyway, >>> just the time to scan the file systems. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> There are 10 kinds of people in the world... >>> those who understand binary and those who don't. >>> >>> >>> >>> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >>> >>> >>> >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charles F >>> Sullivan >>> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 2:58 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Advice: migrate to new file server >>> >>> >>> >>> I always use the /mir option when doing a migration like that. The >>> reason is I have to do a "big" initial copy and then at least one >>> delta copy. (I usually do the final copy after removing access by >>> changing share perms or removing the share entirely so no further >>> changes are made.) If I don't use the /mir option, users will likely >>> end up with data that is no longer supposed to be present. (This >>> assumes they will continue to have access to the old server while >>> copy job is running.) >>> >>> >>> >>> It's completely safe despite the warning in the help, at least in >>> this scenario. Unless I'm missing something, the new server will not >>> be accessible to users until you finish the migration, thus there >>> should be no extra data which could get deleted. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Michael Leone <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'd like to impose once more for some advice and opinions. I have a >>> Win >>> 2008 R2 file server; I need to migrate everything (shares and user >>> home >>> folders) to a Win 2012 R2 Storage Server, and then retire the old server. >>> Everything is one 1 drive, with 3 main folders (Shares,Users,Scans), >>> total size in the neighborhood of 2TB. Both have 4 teamed 1G NICs, so >>> a total bandwidth of 4G. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm thinking of use robocopy. I would make a full copy over the weekend: >>> >>> >>> >>> Source=OldFS\F$ >>> >>> Destination=NewFs\d$ >>> >>> >>> >>> RoboCopy <Source> <Destination> /S /E /ZB /COPYALL /R:1 /W:1 /V /NP >>> /NFL /NDL /LOG+:<LogFile> >>> >>> >>> >>> That should get everything, NTFS security and all sub-folders. I >>> thought about the /MIR option, but I've never used it, and so am just >>> a touch leery (perhaps illogically). >>> >>> >>> >>> The end goal is to: >>> >>> copy all the files and shares to the new FS; >>> >>> re-name and re-IP the old FS; >>> >>> power off the old FS; >>> >>> re-name and re-IP the new FS to the old name. >>> >>> >>> >>> (this way I can power up the old FS, just in case I need it for >>> something I've missed) >>> >>> >>> >>> That *should* make things transparent to the end users. >>> >>> >>> >>> (ordinarily, I would think about doing a restore from my backup >>> program Networker. But this is a remote site, and I believe that >>> doing a local robocopy will probably be faster than trying to restore >>> 2TB of what is probably a lot of small user files and folders across >>> a 1G link) >>> >>> >>> >>> What have I missed? What would make it better? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Charlie Sullivan >>> >>> Sr. Windows Systems Administrator >>> >>> Boston College >>> >>> 197 Foster St. Room 367 >>> >>> Brighton, MA 02135 >>> >>> 617-552-4318 >> >> > > > Attention: Information contained in this message and or attachments is > intended only for the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential > and or privileged material that is protected under State or Federal law. If > you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or > action taken on it is prohibited. If you believe you have received this email > in error, please contact the sender with a copy to [email protected], > delete this email and destroy all copies. > NOTE -- This message contains legally privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you.
