Coexisting SMS 2003 and SCCM 2007 Hierarchy in same AD Domain
Hi, Someone knows what happes if existone SMS 2003 infraestructure and one SCCM 2007 coexisting in same AD Domain? Two infraestructures they have the scheme extended and SLP published. What happen in this scene when one client ask to the SLPto know his MP? This scene is supported if the boundaries in the two hierarhies are well implemented? Thank you for the answers Toni
May 20th, 2008 6:02am

No problem at allif you have no overlapping boundaries!
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
May 20th, 2008 6:40am

Torsten Could I possibly expand on the original question as we are intending to do the same. We at the University of Leeds use SMS 2003 SP2 to manage our 12000 XP desktops.We are going to install SCCM 2007, but certain restrictions/reservations prevents us from either doing a side-by-side upgrade (as we have new server hardware) or an in-place upgrade. My question is: can we install a SCCM infrastructure alongside our current live infrastructure, rather than put it in above the existing hierarchy as a central site? The thinking behind this is that it does not "touch" our live SMS 2003 infrastructure. We will recreate our collections and packages with scripts. As regards the clients, our boundaries are defined using AD default-first-site-name (not ip subnets). Would this cause a problem if we decided to do a staged migration on to SCCM of the SMS 2003 Advanced Clients? We have one AD site only so the SCCM server would be in the same AD, so what would be the best method of performing the client migration? Our live topography is really simple. One Primary site and one child-primary. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
May 20th, 2008 7:31am

As Torsten said aslong as you dont define overlapping boundaries in your sites it will work. If you have all your ip subnets defined under default-first-site-name you would need to move all clients at one time. Removing boundary in site 1 and adding it to site 2. Otherwise there is no problem having the site in coexistence. It is also safe to extend you AD schema from a SMS/SCCM perspective. You'll Never Walk Alone Best Regards Stefan Feel free to e-mail or add me on msn messenger Stefan Schrling E-Mail / MSN Messenger: stefan@msfaq.se System Management Blog: Http://www.msfaq.se
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
May 20th, 2008 1:44pm

And I personally never would use Default-First-Site-Name as a boundary. The reason being, that is the default AD site that comes with every AD environment. So if everyone were to use it, and then you attached another site to your environment, you'd have overlapping boundaries, which is really bad. So, the recommendation would be to create a unique AD site instead of using Default-First-Site-Name. And in this case, with a side-by-side upgrade (which is really what you are talking about). you need unique boundaries, especially if you are not going to remove the SMS 2003 site.
May 20th, 2008 11:44pm

Thank you Wally and Stefan and Torsten.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
May 22nd, 2008 6:26am

We have a similar situation were we have to different companies in the same network. One company have SMS2003 and the other company one want to install SCCM 2007. That means that we will have overlapping boudaries. What exactly will happen and is there a way to have them coexist without rebuilding the network?
September 3rd, 2008 4:22am

Always best to start a new thread, as often people will stop monitoring when they see a post has been marked as answered :-) What can happen is that a client that is assigned to site A can think it is roaming to site B, as it is within the boundaries of site B (as well as site A, but we don't guarantee that we go to the assigned site - don't get me started on that :-( So the client from site A can try to query the MP in site B or distribution points to find content. If they are two different hierarchies (not joined) then we should never get any content from site B. But there are some cases, especially with Vista and SMS 2003 SP2, where it can cause a problem with roaming back to the assigned site, and we then wouldn't get content even from site A (the assigned site). The bottom line is that it is a bad thing to have two sites sharing the same boundaries (meaning an individual IP address could be assigned to more than one site). Always avoid when you can. If you can't, then I recommend to not publish to AD, control your discovery methods so they don't discover systems that you should not be managing, and manually assign clients to sites (which then would require WINS and an SLP).
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
September 3rd, 2008 11:55am

Can you publish to AD after the SMS 2003 Server is removed.
April 3rd, 2012 9:59am

Is that a question or a statement? You do realize this is a long dead thread also?Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com | Twitter @JasonSandys
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
April 3rd, 2012 11:44am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics