We are planning migration from MIIS to FIM2010.

We use MIIS for galsync and password sync.

We have already FIM in our domain.

If we import mailbox to FIM metavese , I think  there is no side effect if we do not export contacts to each ADs.

We would like to do Join test of existing contact object to avoid contact recreation when migration.

If we import mailbox to metaverse and do join test of exisiting contact to imported metaverse object, how could I avoid negative impact on production environment ?

I though if we uncheck the synchronization target OU which contacts will be created after join test, contacts are disconnected and there will be no effect on production environment ?

Hi,

Are you migrating your current MIIS server to FIM 2010? Meaning are you planning to install FIM using the current MIIS database? If so, all obejcts from the current environment will exists and already synchronized in the Metaverse: FIM REFERENCE: Migrate from MIIS or ILM to FIM 2010

If you are planning to install FIM from scratch and re-import all users from all forests you can then make the test mentioned where you sould select only the user/s OU to import for the test and leave in the target OU only the contact/s for the test.

The steps should be (example on two forests):

1. Un-check "Enable Provisioning Rules Extension" (from the tools --> options)

2. full import (stage only) from ForestA MA

3. full import (stage only) from  ForestB MA

4. full synchronization from ForestA MA (Project users of ForestA)

5. full synchronization from ForestB MA (Project users of ForestB and Join contacts of ForestA)

6. full synchronization from ForestA MA (Join contacts of ForestB)

7. Re-check "Enable Provisioning Rules Extension"

Remark: of course, each MA is a Source and also a Target

You will find all the information needed for GALSync in the following link: Global Address List Synchronization (GalSync) Resources

Thank you.

I read that article.

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/4268.fim-reference-migrate-from-miis-or-ilm-to-fim-2010.aspx

Due to MIIS SP version and SQL DB version, we decided to install FIM from scratch and re-import all users from all forests.

Why we have to Un-check "Enable Provisioning Rules Extension" ?

1. Un-check "Enable Provisioning Rules Extension" (from the tools --> options)

At first , it is reasonable to do join test for new created test users.

But , is there ant way to join test for real user without negative impact ?

Why we have to Un-check "Enable Provisioning Rules Extension" ?

When you are populating the FIM Metaverse for the first time, you need to disable provisioning so that all of the metaverse objects in all of your source/target systems can be joined prior to the provisioning logic being evaluated.

If you didn't have this on, you would likely get "object already exists" provisioning errors in Step 4, as FIM would be trying to provision every object from A into B, even if they already existed. This occurs because the objects haven't had a chance to join up.

- Ross Currie

Thank you.

After doing  join test by new created test users and test contact,

1

is there any way to join test for real usesr and contacts object  in production environment without negative impact  ?

2

The following join test make sence ?

   -1 Make AD, Exchange , FIM test environment which has same AD, Exchange schema version from scratch(not by AD replication or cloning)

   -2 Extract real users and contacts from production environment by ldifde(legacyExchangeDN,targetadress,proxyaddresses, etc attributes)  and import that ldif file to test AD environment.

   -3 DO join test of contacts object imported to test AD in step2 using legacyExchangeDN,targetaddress,proxyaddress join rule.

Thank you.

1 Un-check "Enable Provisioning Rules Extension" enable to ignore to call provision function of MV rule extension ?

2 Do you mean , at first import and sync users  to metaverse without provisionning, and then try to import and join existing contact ?

3 If we fail to join contact object, is therer any negative impact to production environment if we delete those GALMA and CS objects of FIM ?

 

1 and 2 - This is correct. When you are starting from scratch on an existing environment (source and target) you have to Project and Join without a Provisioning rule.

3 - Contacts will be deleted only if they exist first in the Metaverse (Deletion rule won't be triggered on objects that aren't projected or joined to the Metaverse)

Thank you.

About #3,

We are worry about some of existing contacts are successfully joined but , a lot of contacts failed  to join .

In that case we would like to rollback without negative impact to production environment.

Is there any way ?

Impact will occur only on export step to external data source. Import and Sync steps to FIM doesn't affect external data sources (like AD etc..)

If you didn't made an export run to AD, you can make a connector spaces deletion on the Management Agent/s (choose the option "connector spaces only") and that will be your rollback.

Thank you.

You mentioned that

>Deletion rule won't be triggered on objects that aren't projected or joined to the Metaverse.

I am worry about successfully joined existing contacts are deleted when deleting  GALMA and CS objects of FIM in case of rollback.

You are safe if you don't make any export.

You can look objects changes in the "Outbound Synchronization" and see if it fit your expectation before the change occur on the target and only then make the export run.

In any case, as I mentioned, Import and Sync to FIM without export doesn't affect the target.

Thank you.

If we failed to join existing contact object, we can safely delete CSobjects ( connector spaces deletion on the Management Agent/s (choose the option "connector spaces only") )  without negative impact to production existing contacts and mailboxes and we can repeat join test over and over ?

If the join failed for some contacts then these are not imported to FIM at all, and stay as disconnector.

If we Disable Provisioning Rules Extension,

import attribute flow which flow use rule exetension is ommited ?

It looks it behave like that.