Skip to main content

active directory - Build new domain server 2012 in parallel with existing windows domain server 2003

I have existing network with around 400 PCs on it working
under windows xp professional and windows 7
professional
too.




Around
375 PCs are linked using static IP address and they are not connected to any domain
server and only around 25 PCs are Linked to an existing domain server exist on the
network working under windows server 2003 be cause of project
that is stopped 5 years ago and no one control what happen on it and know nothing about
it so as you can see their not much think to lose.



Now I want to make new domain server

but using Windows Server 2012 R2



I have installed Windows Server
2012 R2
and I am planning to activate the active
direcory
,DHCP, and
DNS
while these small number of PCs which are linked
to the OLD windows domain server
2003
are ruining and I want to touch them for now since they are belong to
high level employees.



I want to slowly move all
other PCs which are not connected to any domain server yet to join one by one with slow
steps to the new domain server.




my
question is



is their any conflict may happens
in mt case ? if yes what is it and how I can avoid it to shift all PCs to new doamin
server and keep those small number for the last step
??



if there is any advices or think you can help
me with I will really appricicate since I will bulid that from the scrch

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able