At CERN

1. At CERN Progress Report Alberto Di Meglio, Ivan Deloose, Per Hagen, Frédéric Hemmer, Alberto Pace Information Technology Division - CERN

2. Outline • Pilot experience • Plans for production services • Home directories • Migration out of Novell Netware • Migration out of NT4 • Tools • Application distribution • Next Steps

3. Windows 2000 Pilot Experience • ~ 150 systems • 30 Windows 2000 Servers • 130 Windows 2000 Professional • 2.5 % of expected scope • Variety of users  • … but mainly volunteers  • Variety of platforms • Laptops (15) • 90-800Mhz, 48->512 MB

4. General problems encountered • DFS FRS on large volumes sometime fails • Maybe due to staging space limitations • Decided to switch FRS off for Home dirs. • SMS software metering sometimes fail • Will see if future versions solve this • DNS integration with Unix bind was not easy • Server backup SW long to arrive • Some problems with portable and PNP/Modem/APM have been observed • Cleared by a reboot • Support for some devices is still flaky • E.g. GSM, HP consumer printers Overall impression positive

5. Windows 2000 on Portables • Benefits • All your documents can be made available for offline use • Hibernate/Standby support • DHCP • PnP • Resilient to network/server failures • Problems • Some PnP problems appearing occasionally

6. Windows 2000 Desktop Stability

7. Outline • Pilot experience • Plans for production services • Home directories • Migration out of Novell Netware • Migration out of NT4 • Tools • Application distribution • Next Steps

8. Home Directories WINIT01 adimeg WINDFS02 WINDFS01 Users\a\adimeg WINEP01 Users\a\azu azu Users\z • Initial pilot proposal based on a divisional structure But …

9. Problems with this approach • MS recommends maximum 1000 DFS mount points • There are more than 8000 users • We ran into the limit where no more links could be created (September 2000) • Automatic creation of users gets complicated • A lookup on every div is necessary • Users change from div to div

10. Physical structure (II) WINDIV01 adimeg . . . WINDFS02 azu WINDFS01 Users\a WINDIV26 zhyon Users\z So alphabetic ordering was implemented

11. Architecture limitation ? • With this approach, all accounts with the same initial letter must be on the same physical server • All home directories must be hosted in 26 servers maximum • However … • Better that divisional approach where all home dir had to be hosted in max 11 servers • In all cases, project space can be used to offload home directory servers if necessary • With present technology, all home directories could be hosted in 4 servers – there is lot of space for growth … (especially because server technology evolves very fast)

12. New Mount Points Old Mount Points Unlimited evolution (several thousands mount points possible) Logical Structure cern.ch Dfs Tree adimeg Users a … … azu z Projects LHCB harvey scratch Applications Systems

13. Macintosh support • Should we offer Appleshare services from DFS ? • File services for the Mac are one generation behind services for Win • Can compromise the stability of the DFS service (as it did with Novell in the past) • Only for a minority of users • Still unclear if the Mac will be a supported platform at CERN

14. Outline • Pilot experience • Plans for production services • Home directories • Migration out of Novell Netware • Migration out of NT4 • Tools • Application distribution • Next Steps

15. NetWare Migration to W2000 • A nightmare, largely underestimated • Multiple name spaces • Support for Macintosh • Historical situation grown from 1990 • Large number of accounts (>8000) • Large number of groups (>800) • Large number of (old) files (10 M) • Complex file protection scheme • Not directly mappable to W2K

16. Scenario • Migrate NW file systems to NTFS5 • CERN NT domain (not W2K pilot) • Keep UNC paths unchanged (user transparent) • No NT4 servers • Successful reliability and performance results win2000 • Better ACL mappings (inheritance, special rights) • Name spaces • DOS-OS2 (long names), MAC, NFS • Different server types • Workgroup servers, MAC only servers, NICE application servers, divisional servers, home directory servers

17. Technical Problems • MAC name space • NW provides APIs to extract AFP resources (icons, MAC name), but no Win32 API to write these back to a NTFS server -> Use a Mac to transfer files • The Mac does not copy ACL and all security related information • NFS name space • No solution for automated file ownership/rights migration

18. Migration sequence Netware server W2K server

19. Migration sequence NTMigrate (Win2000) 1 - Get a PC (NT4 – 32bit NW client) 5 – Convert users, groups and file rights 4 – Generate Trustee & NW Group member files 5 – Create groups and add members 2 - Create Directory structure file DOS, AFP name space (NDSDump) 6 – Set ACLs on directories 7 - Get a Macintosh 8 – Copy files using DirStruct file (speed) 9 – Rename directories DOS -> Mac name Netware server 3 - Create Directories on target server W2K server

20. NetWare Servers migration

21. Problems Encountered ? • Client for MS sometimes not correctly configured • Manual fix • Netware/NT Password not synchronized • Manual / automated fix • ftp access syntax changed • New syntax to learn, scripts to modify • Manual drive mappings • Needs to be recreated • No root mapping • Kludge exist on NT; nothing on W95 • Trustee manager not available • Trustee manager written • Disconnected portable take time to logon • Eject PCMCIA Ethernet adapter • Home Directories are browsable • Feature, similar to AFS

22. Outline • Pilot experience • Plans for production services • Home directories • Server Migration out of Novell Netware • Server Migration out of NT4 • Tools • Application distribution • Next Steps

23. NT 4 Server Migration to W2000 • WINS Servers done • Domain Controllers done • Including remote DCs in experiments • CERN Domain promoted to Win2000 native mode • In-place upgrade • Mostly transparent to users

24. Outline • Pilot experience • Plans for production services • Home directories • Migration out of Novell Netware • Migration out of NT4 • Tools • Application distribution • Next Steps

25. Tools that had to be developed • Printer Wizard • Trustee Manager • Group Manager • User Registration Services • Computer Registration Services • To be done • Password recovery, “Administrators” Local Group management, Local Administrator Password recovery, Computer Account Reset, User Profile recovery and reset, quota enforcement, quota management … DEMO

26. Outline • Pilot experience • Plans for production services • Home directories • Migration out of Novell Netware • Migration out of NT4 • Tools • Application distribution • Next Steps

27. Application Concurrent Usage

28. Managed Applications • Part of OS • Internet Explorer • Assigned to Computer (using MSI) • MS Office 2000 • Access, Excel, FrontPage, Outlook, PowerPoint, Word • Acrobat Reader, Printing Package, Phone Book, Winzip, anti virus, and other tools … • Published to User (using MSI or ZAP) • MS Project, MS Publisher • Remedy • Exceed All most used functionalities are provided

29. Application Deployment • Still unclear to what extent SMS will be used • We are trying to deploy using mainly MSI and ZAP files • In order to use ZAP files, the “Administrators” local group has to be managed

30. Comparing SMS 2.0 and Win 2000 Only overlap is in software deployment!

31. SMS Questions • Are there any privacy issues? • Do we have to restrict access to these tools? To whom? • Do we have to include special clauses in outsourcing contracts ? • Do we have to have our own staff to sign something ? (cf. HR data). • How do we publicize this ?

32. Few words on an hot topic • Netscape is currently the most used app at CERN • But we see a dark future … • Netscape 4.7 has not been made available (as a managed app.) in the pilot • No SMS/MSI install available • No CERN customization available • Repackaging risk to be difficult • IE 5.x integrated in the OS • Outlook now part of Office (with MSI)

33. Current Proposal (under discussion) • Recommend Internet Explorer and Outlook 2000 as the browser and mail client for Windows 2000 • Apparently stable • No CERN specials anymore • Bookmarks and Address Books can be imported • IMAP mails & structure unchanged • Deployment of collaborative tools possible (calendaring, groupware, video conferencing, …)

34. W2KMTF • The current question is now: • How to proceed with the next steps, I.e. how do we go from the current NICE 95/NT to NICE 2000 and what timescale ? • Applications: many of them, overlapping functionality, support not always clear, work needed to repackage ? • At what speed are the divisions/experiments ready to migrate ? • What are the show stoppers ? • A working group has been setup • Windows 2000 Migration Task Force • First meeting scheduled the 7th of November • More than 30 participants …

35. Outline • Pilot experience • Plans for production services • Home directories • Migration out of Novell Netware • Migration out of NT4 • Tools • Application distribution • Next Steps

36. Next Steps • Define automated installation procedures • Unattended W2K setup + assigned applications • sysprep / disk image for new PC’s & portables • Develop missing tools • Repackage missing applications • Once the application set has been decided … • Customize mail client for CERN environment • And finally, start migrating client computers • 4000 PCs, 2 hrs/PC  5 man*years

37. (July 2000) (February 2000) (today) Coexistence & Migration plan NICE 2000 NICE 2000 NICE 2000 NICE 2000 with minimal set of apps Schedule Applications availability with MSI Migration scenarios Proof of concepts Prototype Windows 2000 Pilot Checkpoint Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb