| Author | Messages | |
bdesmond
Posts:374
 | | 05/01/2008 2:43 PM |
| I don't think it's you or anyone's place to say that this is a true/false
question. It depends on each environment, and I've worked in large shops
wehre either WINS is easier than DNS or WINS is harder than DNS apply.
--brian
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Akomolafe, Deji <deji@readymaids.com> wrote:
> The argument that WINS is "easier" to manage is false. And, much as joe
> would like to avoid stating it, even he had "issues" with it in his "widget"
> shop.
>
> I totally agree with the position that, like everything else, the efficacy
> of a tool is greatly affected by the expertise of the person
> holding/deploying/managing it. Anyone can wield a machette, but few can
> employ it as well as a farmer can.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> _____
> (, / | /) /) /)
> /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
> ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
> (_/ /)
> (/
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> www.akomolafe.name - we know IT
> -5.75, -3.23
> Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
> Yesterday? -anon
> ________________________________________
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [
> ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-Elia [
> darren@sdmsoftware.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:58 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WINS? Ick. WAS [OT] introduction
>
> Actually, I don't really understand that. Is it because the WINS namespace
> is flat and so somehow that is simpler to manage? Because my experience
> with
> WINS management is that it was not easy (at least in a large environment)
> and required quite a bit of expertise and baby-sitting to keep it healthy.
> Things like replication that are handled for you today with AD-integrated
> DNS had to be manually managed in WINS and were fraught with peril if not
> designed well. Also, WINS was/is completely inflexible with respect to
> functionality equivalent to CNAMES, had issues with name lengths, required
> you to keep track of a myriad of ridiculous suffixes and generally
> speaking
> was constantly requiring database maintenance.
>
> Darren
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Wells, James
> Arthur
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:51 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] introduction
>
> That might be the case - but I think the point is that WINS is less
> complex
> to manage.
>
> So it'll take fewer admins/lower TCO/fewer operational risks vs. DNS,
> given
> the same quality admins.
>
>
>
> --James
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 9:22 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] introduction
>
> You cleverly side-stepped the question, joe.
>
> If you truly believe that the health of a WINS implementation is directly
> proportional to the "quality" of its implementor/administrator, then is it
> not logical to assume the same of DNS?
>
> Sincerely,
> _____
> (, / | /) /) /)
> /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
> ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
> (_/ /)
> (/
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> www.akomolafe.name - we know IT
> -5.75, -3.23
> Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
> Yesterday? -anon
> ________________________________________
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of joe [
> listmail@joeware.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 6:20 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] introduction
>
> You know we didn't run Windows DNS at all. We needed functionality that
> MSFT
> didn't put in because they thought they knew what we were doing...
>
>
> --
> O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 1:17 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] introduction
>
> Did I just hear you say "DNS worked very well for us on NT4 (and beyond).
> Possibly it was simply the quality of the admins running it"?
>
> Does that mean you are going to stop dumping on DNS now?
>
>
> Sincerely,
> _____
> (, / | /) /) /)
> /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
> ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
> (_/ /)
> (/
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> www.akomolafe.name - we know IT
> -5.75, -3.23
> Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
> Yesterday? -anon ________________________________________
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of joe [
> listmail@joeware.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:09 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] introduction
>
> Maybe because you are recalling this poorly Deji.
>
> I wasn't always chasing errant 1C/1B records, I wasn't ever chasing errant
> 1B/1C records but then you weren't involved in the Enterprise domain stuff
> where we worked, you worked on resource dp,aom servers. We occasionally
> has
> Samba boxes hijacking 1C records and I had a script that monitored that so
> when it happened we had it fixed in very short order. Outside of that the
> biggest issue was "admins" miscofiguring servers to either not point at
> the
> proper WINS servers or loading and running the WINS Service on them. Got
> to
> the point where when someone would call with a WINS issue my team would
> first check the member server in question to make sure it was configured
> properly and it usually wasn't. Didn't matter how many times we tried to
> explain you couldn't configure WINS on a server than then point it at
> another WINS server for name res and have it work properly.
>
> WINS worked very well for us on NT4. Possibly it was simply the quality of
> the admins running it.
>
>
>
> --
> O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:29 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] introduction
>
> Even in NT 4.0. joe just wouldn't admit that it was a kludge, even for
> someone with his expertise. He was always chasing after some errant 1C and
> 1B (or is it 3x) records that periodically go missing for no reason.
>
> Sincerely,
> _____
> (, / | /) /) /)
> /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
> ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
> (_/ /)
> (/
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> www.akomolafe.name - we know IT
> -5.75, -3.23
> Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
> Yesterday? -anon ________________________________________
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-Elia
> [darren@sdmsoftware.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:23 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] introduction
>
> Brandon-
>
> Apparently you never used WINS in NT 3.50... :-)
>
> Darren Mar-Elia
> CTO & Founder
> SDM Software, Inc.
> "The Group Policy Experts"
> www.sdmsoftware.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Brandon Shell" <tshell@gmail.com>
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Sent: 4/30/2008 6:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] introduction
>
> The suffering point was that DNS is harder to configure, Manage, and
> troubleshoot than WINS.
>
> But I agree... lets move on 
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Akomolafe, Deji <deji@readymaids.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You've completely lost me, and I still don't understand the "suffering"
> > part of your original statement. And you still haven't explained how MS'
> > decision to adopt Kerberos was the beginning of your woes, especially
> since
> > you just stated that other Kerberos implementations depend on DNS as
> wellList info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
>
--
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com
c - 312.731.3132
| | | |
|
|