locked
SCCM 2012 SP1, transfer site server role and/or rename server RRS feed

  • Question

  • I've encountered a configuration manager 2012 sp1 CU4 installation that seems to have a few problems.  I need to resolve these before upgrading to SCCM 2012 R2.

    First, easier to describe but a lower priority, is that the single server was created with a name that doesn't match the naming convention.  The client would like to change it, but they won't lose sleep if they can't. From what I know of 2007, that is not supported at all.  I can't find much on SCCM 2012 though.

    Second, and likely a big problem, is that whoever set up the installation used the NetBIOS name for some parts of setup and the FQDN for other parts. So in the Servers and Site System Roles list, I have \\sccm1-server with four roles (component server, management point, site server, site system) as the primary site, \\sccm1-server.client.local with seven roles (component server, distribution point, endpoint protection point, management point, site database server, site system, software update point) as a site system server, and \\server-wsus.client.local with three roles (component server, site system, software update point) as a site system server.  The third one (server-wsus.client.local) of course is correct.  sccm1-server and sccm1-server.client.local both resolve to the same addresses. 

    Third, and one which I have done before (though without name weirdness as above) is that the site database server needs to be transferred off to a new server. 

    Is it likely that moving the db would fix the name funkiness with the roles?  Is there anything I can do to fix the role names, or do I need to trash this installation and start over?

    Monday, August 11, 2014 8:22 PM

Answers

  • You definately cannot rename the server.

    I don't know that the name funkiness would actually break anything. Maybe, maybe not. If it bothers them you could possibly remove the roles and add them back.

    Moving the database is really easy, probably won't fix any of the other issues though.

    It wouldn't be much trouble to stand up a brand new site with the correct server name and correct SQL server then migrate everything over to it.


    John Marcum | Microsoft MVP - Enterprise Client Management
    My blog: System Center Admin | Twitter: @SCCM_Marcum | Linkedin: John Marcum

    • Marked as answer by Jordan Mills Monday, August 11, 2014 8:35 PM
    Monday, August 11, 2014 8:29 PM

All replies

  • You definately cannot rename the server.

    I don't know that the name funkiness would actually break anything. Maybe, maybe not. If it bothers them you could possibly remove the roles and add them back.

    Moving the database is really easy, probably won't fix any of the other issues though.

    It wouldn't be much trouble to stand up a brand new site with the correct server name and correct SQL server then migrate everything over to it.


    John Marcum | Microsoft MVP - Enterprise Client Management
    My blog: System Center Admin | Twitter: @SCCM_Marcum | Linkedin: John Marcum

    • Marked as answer by Jordan Mills Monday, August 11, 2014 8:35 PM
    Monday, August 11, 2014 8:29 PM
  • You definately cannot rename the server.

    I don't know that the name funkiness would actually break anything. Maybe, maybe not. If it bothers them you could possibly remove the roles and add them back.

    Moving the database is really easy, probably won't fix any of the other issues though.

    It wouldn't be much trouble to stand up a brand new site with the correct server name and correct SQL server then migrate everything over to it.


    John Marcum | Microsoft MVP - Enterprise Client Management
    My blog: System Center Admin | Twitter: @SCCM_Marcum | Linkedin: John Marcum

    Okay then, I think I'll recommend they risk the time to just split out the db role and verify continued functionality.  Thanks!
    Monday, August 11, 2014 8:35 PM