To add my €0,02... Just before I went to DEC I played with several versions of SFU and the upgrade to R2 and compared that to the fresh install of R2. Until now these are my findings. I have not yet tried a solution..
I did the following tests... Installed SFU 3.5 and updated the schema. After that I upgraded the schema for R2 --> No issues Installed SFU 3.0 and updated the schema. After that I upgraded the schema for R2 --> No issues Installed SFU 2.0 and updated the schema. After that I upgraded the schema for R2 --> well... See below I did not test SFU version upgrades starting from SFU 2.0 and then upgrade to R2, but I guess that the problem will remain in that situation. SFU 2.0 introduces the following attributes: GidNumber - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.71 UidNumber - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.70 gecos - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.97 loginShell - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.72 shadowLastChange - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.92 shadowMin - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.93 shadowMin - attributeSyntax = 2.5.5.5 shadowMax - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.90 shadowWarning - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.91 shadowWarning - attributeSyntax = 2.5.5.5 shadowInactive - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.89 shadowExpire - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.88 shadowFlag - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.87 memberUid - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.86 memberNisNetgroup - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.79 memberNisNetgroup - attributeSyntax = 2.5.5.1 ipServicePort - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.74 ipServiceProtocol - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.75 ipProtocolNumber - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.76 oncRpcNumber - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.81 ipHostNumber - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.82 ipNetworkNumber - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.77 ipNetmaskNumber - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.78 macAddress - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.85 bootParameter - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.96 bootFile - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.98 nisMapName - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.94 nisMapName - isSingleValued = FALSE nisMapEntry - attributeId = 1.2.840.113556.1.4.7000.187.95 nisMapEntry - isSingleValued = FALSE nisMap - governsId = 1.2.840.113556.1.5.7000.106.58 R2 introduces both attributes: GidNumber - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.1 UidNumber - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.0 gecos - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.2 loginShell - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.4 shadowLastChange - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.5 shadowMin - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.6 shadowMin - attributeSyntax = 2.5.5.9 shadowMax - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.7 shadowWarning - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.8 shadowWarning - attributeSyntax = 2.5.5.9 shadowInactive - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.9 shadowExpire - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.10 shadowFlag - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.11 memberUid - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.12 memberNisNetgroup - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.13 memberNisNetgroup - attributeSyntax = 2.5.5.5 ipServicePort - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.15 ipServiceProtocol - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.16 ipProtocolNumber - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.17 oncRpcNumber - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.18 ipHostNumber - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.19 ipNetworkNumber - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.20 ipNetmaskNumber - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.21 macAddress - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.22 bootParameter - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.23 bootFile - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.24 nisMapName - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.26 nisMapName - isSingleValued = TRUE nisMapEntry - attributeId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.27 nisMapEntry - isSingleValued = TRUE nisMap - governsId = 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.9 The problem and solution is SIMILAR to the one mentioned in http://support.microsoft.com/?id=887426 >>> >>>Cheers, >>> >>>jorge >>> >>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian >>>>>>Desmond >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 07:28 >>>>>>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>>>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] issue with R2 upgrade; SFU confusion? >>>>>> >>>>>>Mike- >>>>>> >>>>>>Did you ever get any resolution on this or more info? >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>Brian Desmond >>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> >>>>>>c - 312.731.3132 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- >>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 7:14 PM >>>>>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] issue with R2 upgrade; SFU confusion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ask him/her what the article number is if this is a known >>>>>>issue. If >>>>>>> he/she says there isn't one then say it sure isn't >>>known very well >>>>>>> then. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - >>>>>>> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>>Of Thommes, >>>>>>> Michael M. >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 2:18 PM >>>>>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] issue with R2 upgrade; SFU confusion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Our MS TAM has indicated this is a known bug! I will keep >>>>>>the group >>>>>>> posted as I learn more details. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike Thommes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>>Of Thommes, >>>>>>> Michael M. >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 10:52 AM >>>>>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] issue with R2 upgrade; SFU confusion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As an update to this thread, we transferred the Schema >>>Master role >>>>>>back >>>>>>> to other DC that has the SFU tools installed originally >>>>>>thinking this >>>>>>> might get the R2 schema update to work. Wrong! It >>>fails with the >>>>>>same >>>>>>> error. I can only imagine we do not have that unique an >>>>>>environment >>>>>>in >>>>>>> our testbed and expect others to have the same experience. >>>>>> Luckily, >>>>>>we >>>>>>> never put SFU 3.5 on our production systems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are going to open up a trouble ticket with Microsoft >>>>>>regarding this >>>>>>> issue. I would like to hear of others' experiences (success or >>>>>>> failure) when trying to install R2 in an environment where >>>>>>SFU 3.5 had >>>>>>> been installed. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike Thommes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>>Of Thommes, >>>>>>> Michael M. >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:07 AM >>>>>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] issue with R2 upgrade; SFU confusion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Guido, >>>>>>> Thanks for the response! This server is Windows >>>>>>2003/SP1 with all >>>>>>> but the current month's patches. It is the current FSMO >>>>>>role holder. >>>>>>> I did some checking this morning and find the SFU 3.5 >>>>>>tools on another >>>>>>> DC that could have been the FSMO role holder at the time the SFU >>>>>>schema >>>>>>> changes were made. I don't see why that would make any >>>>>>difference, do >>>>>>> you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>>>>>Grillenmeier, >>>>>>> Guido >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:00 AM >>>>>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] issue with R2 upgrade; SFU confusion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike - I see you're upgrading from Win2000 AD. Are your >>>sure that >>>>>>> you've previously installed SFU 3.5 or was it maybe SFU 2.0 ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason I'm asking is that there's a known schema >>>>>>incompatibility >>>>>>> with SFU 2.0: >>>>>>> check out http://support.microsoft.com/?id=293783 >>>"Cannot Upgrade >>>>>>> Windows 2000 Server to Windows Server 2003 with Windows >>>>>>Services for >>>>>>> UNIX 2.0 Installed" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CAUSE >>>>>>> The upgrade may not work because the attributeSchema >>>'uid' that is >>>>>>used >>>>>>> by Windows 2000 Server for the NIS schema is not >>>>>>compatible with the >>>>>>> one that is used by Windows Server 2003. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As such your error is likely independent from the changes >>>>>>in the R2 >>>>>>> schema - it's actually an incompatibility in the Win2003 >>>>>>base schema >>>>>>> (not that this really matters for you; I just want to >>>>>>clarify that the >>>>>>> error should be unrelated to R2). As such it's different >>>>>>from Aric's >>>>>>> case, who was performing an upgrade from a Win2003 schema >>>>>>to Win2003 >>>>>>> R2... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Guido >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>>Of Thommes, >>>>>>> Michael M. >>>>>>> Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2006 02:53 >>>>>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] issue with R2 upgrade; SFU confusion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Aric, >>>>>>> No, there were a lot more errors - all seem to be >>>>>>related to SFU >>>>>>> attributes. I only copied a small portion to my >>>posting to save >>>>>>> bandwidth. >>>>>>> Painful = time = headaches 8-( I was expecting this >>>>>>upgrade to be a >>>>>>> "walk in the park". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike Thommes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>>>>>Bernard, Aric >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 7:46 PM >>>>>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] issue with R2 upgrade; SFU confusion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are these the only two errors you received? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I encountered similar errors during beta testing when I >>>>>>implemented R2 >>>>>>> in an existing forest - but a lot more than just 2. :) I >>>>>>created a >>>>>>> secondary forest and validated that it did not recur. >>>Note that I >>>>>>also >>>>>>> had SFU installed in the original forest and the new >>>>>>secondary forest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was able to clean up the schema in the existing >>>forest exhibiting >>>>>>the >>>>>>> errors but it was a fairly painful process of what >>>seemed to be a >>>>>>goose >>>>>>> chase. The tasks included disabling objects attributes in >>>>>>the schema >>>>>>> and renaming them amongst other things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fortunately I have not heard of this happening in >>>production...yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So can these errors be ignored? If I remember >>>correctly ADPrep is >>>>>>> actually failing and therefore NO you cannot ignore these >>>>>>errors since >>>>>>> ADPREP will nto occur until they are resolved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Aric >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>>Of Thommes, >>>>>>> Michael M. >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:22 PM >>>>>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>>>>> Subject: [ActiveDir] issue with R2 upgrade; SFU confusion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> We did a adprep /forestprep from the W2K3/SP1 R2 Disk >>>>>>2 CD today >>>>>>on >>>>>>> our testbed FSMO DC. It gave the following errors >>>(only a portion >>>>>>> shown >>>>>>> below) because, I am guessing, that we had already >>>>>>installed SFU 3.5 >>>>>>on >>>>>>> this forest some time ago. Should I assume these errors can be >>>>>>> ignored? >>>>>>> Has anybody else experienced this? Thanks as always! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike Thommes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>========================================================== >>>========== >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "attributeId" attribute value for objects defined in >>>Windows 2000 >>>>>>> schema and ext ended schema do not match. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A previous schema extension has defined the attribute value as >>>>>>> "1.2.840.113556.1 >>>>>>> .4.7000.187.70" for object >>>>>>> "CN=uidNumber,CN=Schema,CN=Configuration,DC=anl,DC=go >>>>>>> v" differently than the schema extension needed for Windows 2003 >>>>>>server >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> [Status/Consequence] >>>>>>> Adprep cannot extend your existing schema [User Action] >>>>>>Contact the >>>>>>> vendor of the application that previously extended the >>>>>>schema to res >>>>>>> olve the inconsistency. Then run adprep again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>============================================================= >>>>>>========== >>>>>>> = >>>>>>> ===== >>>>>>> "attributeId" attribute value for objects defined in >>>Windows 2000 >>>>>>> schema and ext ended schema do not match. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A previous schema extension has defined the attribute value as >>>>>>> "1.2.840.113556.1 >>>>>>> .4.7000.187.71" for object >>>>>>> "CN=gidNumber,CN=Schema,CN=Configuration,DC=anl,DC=go >>>>>>> v" differently than the schema extension needed for Windows 2003 >>>>>>server >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> [Status/Consequence] >>>>>>> Adprep cannot extend your existing schema [User Action] >>>>>>Contact the >>>>>>> vendor of the application that previously extended the >>>>>>schema to res >>>>>>> olve the inconsistency. Then run adprep again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>>> List archive: >>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>>> List archive: >>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>>> List archive: >>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>>> List archive: >>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>>> List archive: >>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>>> List archive: >>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>>> List archive: http://www.mail- >>>>>>> archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>>> List archive: http://www.mail- >>>>>>> archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>>List archive: >>>>>>http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>> This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
