| Author | Messages | |
ramstryke
Posts:20
 | | 03/05/2008 9:50 PM |
| Not sure if this a lame question or not, but I'm in a
company at which we have several sites across the
country. Let's say LA, Houston, and Atlanta. We are
very lucky of having the benefit of decent fat pipes
between each site. On average 1Gb links between each.
With that said, is this enough reason to not create
separate site links between each site? The current
admins have seen fit to keep one site link at which
all sites are part of. Going against my better
judgement of linking each geographically
LA--Houston--Atlanta, they elect to keep just the one.
Each site has their own set of DCs, generally one
domain, however there is one child in one site. Is
this wrong, or should I be collecting more
information?
Thanks.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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
| | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:366
| | 03/05/2008 10:45 PM |
| Hi-
So, with one gig links assuming they're not saturated you're quite possibly fine just leaving it. The problem here is latency.
Let's for simplicitly call your sites LAX, IAH, and ATL for Los Angeles, Houston, and Atlanta.
Latency from ATL-IAH is relatively minimal. LAX-ATL however is a very long shot - latency. LAX-IAH is a midcon shot so still kind of alot.
So, your user logon times are potentially higher/slower, and certainly GC responses for Exchange.
So, I'd make three site links cost them all the same and link the sites in a triangle if that's what your WAN looks like. Clients will fail back if their local DCs go boom.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com
c - 312.731.3132
________________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of ramstryke@yahoo.com [ramstryke@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
Not sure if this a lame question or not, but I'm in a
company at which we have several sites across the
country. Let's say LA, Houston, and Atlanta. We are
very lucky of having the benefit of decent fat pipes
between each site. On average 1Gb links between each.
With that said, is this enough reason to not create
separate site links between each site? The current
admins have seen fit to keep one site link at which
all sites are part of. Going against my better
judgement of linking each geographically
LA--Houston--Atlanta, they elect to keep just the one.
Each site has their own set of DCs, generally one
domain, however there is one child in one site. Is
this wrong, or should I be collecting more
information?
Thanks.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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
| | | |
| ramstryke
Posts:20
| | 03/05/2008 11:19 PM |
| Thx for the info Brian! You mention GC responses.. is it bad to have all DCs as GCs? That's what we're set at to hopefully have local GC queries ala Exchange. Exchange exists in our LAX site.
As for logon times, won't users in each site logon thru their local DCs since we've defined sites or is there more to that? Not sure I understand when you say logon times are potentially higher/slower.
As for creating the site links other admins say KISS, keep it simple. They believe creating these numerous links will add to replication times since the least it can be set to is 15 mins. Although the WAN truly isnt a triangle as ATL has no direct connect to LAX.
This is what our WAN is like..
SFO-LAX-PHX===HOU-ATL-CVG
LAX and ATL are sort of like hubs as the edge offices are 'peered' to them, if that makes sense..
For those most part domain1.com encompasses SFO, LAX, PHX, HOU, domain2.com are ATL and CVG.
Thanks! | | | |
| ramstryke
Posts:20
| | 03/06/2008 9:56 AM |
| Sorry for the confusion, yes we have separate sites created, for each of the offices.
Our WAN is like this, if this shows up well in text (if not I posted a gif here http://b.imagehost.org/0209/wan.gif)..
SFO ATL
\ /
LAX=HOU
/ \
PHX CVG
We have each site defined in AD, however, they all share the 1 common site link. I guess my problem is, should we mimic AD site links to how our physical WAN is, despite the great WAN lines we have. What are the pros/cons behind the way we are currently configured.
Thanks. | | | |
| ramstryke
Posts:20
| | 03/06/2008 8:17 PM |
| Sorry for the confusion, yes we have separate sites
created, for each of the offices.
Our WAN is like this, if this shows up well in text
(if not I posted a gif here
http://b.imagehost.org/0209/wan.gif)..
SFO ATL
\ /
LAX=HOU
/ \
PHX CVG
We have each site defined in AD, however, they all
share the 1 common site link. I guess my problem is,
should we mimic AD site links to how our physical WAN
is, despite the great WAN lines we have. What are the
pros/cons behind the way we are currently configured.
Thanks.
--- Brian Desmond <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote:
I don't know why I got this reply out of band this
way, but anyway...
If the sites are setup and it's a single site link
then that is different. I thought I read it was a
single site covering all these locations.
I don't understand your diagram as if you ask me you
can't have a pair of hub sites connected via spokes.
That wouldn't make them hubs.
You could turn change notifaction on on the site links
between these hubs to work around the 15 minute thing.
I am unclear on your WAN topology now, but if you have
sites defined for each location then that is good (I
didn't catch that first go around).
Whether or not you need or want site links I think
depends more on your WAN topology which I am
completely lost on right now.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com<mailto:brian@briandesmond.com>
c - 312.731.3132
________________________________
From: Archive@mail.activedir.org
[Archive@mail.activedir.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:19 PM
To: Brian Desmond
Subject: SubscribedEmail
(8d6d496e-88a1-432b-8c9d-bab5973e7997)
Thx for the info Brian! You mention GC responses.. is
it bad to have all DCs as GCs? That's what we're set
at to hopefully have local GC queries ala Exchange.
Exchange exists in our LAX site.
As for logon times, won't users in each site logon
thru their local DCs since we've defined sites or is
there more to that? Not sure I understand when you say
logon times are potentially higher/slower.
As for creating the site links other admins say KISS,
keep it simple. They believe creating these numerous
links will add to replication times since the least it
can be set to is 15 mins. Although the WAN truly isnt
a triangle as ATL has no direct connect to LAX.
This is what our WAN is like..
SFO-LAX-PHX===HOU-ATL-CVG
LAX and ATL are sort of like hubs as the edge offices
are 'peered' to them, if that makes sense..
For those most part domain1.com encompasses SFO, LAX,
PHX, HOU, domain2.com are ATL and CVG.
Thanks!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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
| | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:366
| | 03/06/2008 8:32 PM |
| Given that I'd build the site links to match so you optimize your replication topology
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com
c - 312.731.3132
________________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of RMS [ramstryke@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:14 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
Sorry for the confusion, yes we have separate sites
created, for each of the offices.
Our WAN is like this, if this shows up well in text
(if not I posted a gif here
http://b.imagehost.org/0209/wan.gif)..
SFO ATL
\ /
LAX=HOU
/ \
PHX CVG
We have each site defined in AD, however, they all
share the 1 common site link. I guess my problem is,
should we mimic AD site links to how our physical WAN
is, despite the great WAN lines we have. What are the
pros/cons behind the way we are currently configured.
Thanks.
--- Brian Desmond <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote:
I don't know why I got this reply out of band this
way, but anyway...
If the sites are setup and it's a single site link
then that is different. I thought I read it was a
single site covering all these locations.
I don't understand your diagram as if you ask me you
can't have a pair of hub sites connected via spokes.
That wouldn't make them hubs.
You could turn change notifaction on on the site links
between these hubs to work around the 15 minute thing.
I am unclear on your WAN topology now, but if you have
sites defined for each location then that is good (I
didn't catch that first go around).
Whether or not you need or want site links I think
depends more on your WAN topology which I am
completely lost on right now.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com<mailto:brian@briandesmond.com>
c - 312.731.3132
________________________________
From: Archive@mail.activedir.org
[Archive@mail.activedir.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:19 PM
To: Brian Desmond
Subject: SubscribedEmail
(8d6d496e-88a1-432b-8c9d-bab5973e7997)
Thx for the info Brian! You mention GC responses.. is
it bad to have all DCs as GCs? That's what we're set
at to hopefully have local GC queries ala Exchange.
Exchange exists in our LAX site.
As for logon times, won't users in each site logon
thru their local DCs since we've defined sites or is
there more to that? Not sure I understand when you say
logon times are potentially higher/slower.
As for creating the site links other admins say KISS,
keep it simple. They believe creating these numerous
links will add to replication times since the least it
can be set to is 15 mins. Although the WAN truly isnt
a triangle as ATL has no direct connect to LAX.
This is what our WAN is like..
SFO-LAX-PHX===HOU-ATL-CVG
LAX and ATL are sort of like hubs as the edge offices
are 'peered' to them, if that makes sense..
For those most part domain1.com encompasses SFO, LAX,
PHX, HOU, domain2.com are ATL and CVG.
Thanks!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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
| | | |
| EricGustafson
Posts:34
| | 03/06/2008 8:37 PM |
| This will become more important when they go to deploy EX2K7 in their org.
--Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:29 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
Given that I'd build the site links to match so you optimize your replication topology
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com
c - 312.731.3132
________________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of RMS [ramstryke@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:14 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
Sorry for the confusion, yes we have separate sites
created, for each of the offices.
Our WAN is like this, if this shows up well in text
(if not I posted a gif here
http://b.imagehost.org/0209/wan.gif)..
SFO ATL
\ /
LAX=HOU
/ \
PHX CVG
We have each site defined in AD, however, they all
share the 1 common site link. I guess my problem is,
should we mimic AD site links to how our physical WAN
is, despite the great WAN lines we have. What are the
pros/cons behind the way we are currently configured.
Thanks.
--- Brian Desmond <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote:
I don't know why I got this reply out of band this
way, but anyway...
If the sites are setup and it's a single site link
then that is different. I thought I read it was a
single site covering all these locations.
I don't understand your diagram as if you ask me you
can't have a pair of hub sites connected via spokes.
That wouldn't make them hubs.
You could turn change notifaction on on the site links
between these hubs to work around the 15 minute thing.
I am unclear on your WAN topology now, but if you have
sites defined for each location then that is good (I
didn't catch that first go around).
Whether or not you need or want site links I think
depends more on your WAN topology which I am
completely lost on right now.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com<mailto:brian@briandesmond.com>
c - 312.731.3132
________________________________
From: Archive@mail.activedir.org
[Archive@mail.activedir.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:19 PM
To: Brian Desmond
Subject: SubscribedEmail
(8d6d496e-88a1-432b-8c9d-bab5973e7997)
Thx for the info Brian! You mention GC responses.. is
it bad to have all DCs as GCs? That's what we're set
at to hopefully have local GC queries ala Exchange.
Exchange exists in our LAX site.
As for logon times, won't users in each site logon
thru their local DCs since we've defined sites or is
there more to that? Not sure I understand when you say
logon times are potentially higher/slower.
As for creating the site links other admins say KISS,
keep it simple. They believe creating these numerous
links will add to replication times since the least it
can be set to is 15 mins. Although the WAN truly isnt
a triangle as ATL has no direct connect to LAX.
This is what our WAN is like..
SFO-LAX-PHX===HOU-ATL-CVG
LAX and ATL are sort of like hubs as the edge offices
are 'peered' to them, if that makes sense..
For those most part domain1.com encompasses SFO, LAX,
PHX, HOU, domain2.com are ATL and CVG.
Thanks!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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
| | | |
| ramstryke
Posts:20
| | 03/06/2008 9:17 PM |
| Thanks for the input guys. If we do break up the
current single sitelink into a variety that match our
WAN topology, we will then start see true replication
delays from site to site (15 mins) especially on the
futher ends of chain, yes?
Brian, you mention Change Notifications as a way
around this? Pls correct if I'm wrong, change
notifications will bypass the minimum 15 minute
frequency and notify other sites that changes are here
come and get it? Which inevitably will work even
better than our current single sitelink!
--- "Gustafson, Eric (Oldcastle Materials)"
<eric.gustafson@oldcastlematerials.com> wrote:
> This will become more important when they go to
> deploy EX2K7 in their org.
>
> --Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian Desmond
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:29 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
>
> Given that I'd build the site links to match so you
> optimize your replication topology
>
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Desmond
> brian@briandesmond.com
>
> c - 312.731.3132
> ________________________________________
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of
> RMS [ramstryke@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:14 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
>
> Sorry for the confusion, yes we have separate sites
> created, for each of the offices.
>
> Our WAN is like this, if this shows up well in text
> (if not I posted a gif here
> http://b.imagehost.org/0209/wan.gif)..
>
> SFO ATL
> \ /
> LAX=HOU
> / \
> PHX CVG
>
> We have each site defined in AD, however, they all
> share the 1 common site link. I guess my problem is,
> should we mimic AD site links to how our physical
> WAN
> is, despite the great WAN lines we have. What are
> the
> pros/cons behind the way we are currently
> configured.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> --- Brian Desmond <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know why I got this reply out of band this
> way, but anyway...
>
> If the sites are setup and it's a single site link
> then that is different. I thought I read it was a
> single site covering all these locations.
>
>
> I don't understand your diagram as if you ask me you
> can't have a pair of hub sites connected via spokes.
> That wouldn't make them hubs.
>
> You could turn change notifaction on on the site
> links
> between these hubs to work around the 15 minute
> thing.
> I am unclear on your WAN topology now, but if you
> have
> sites defined for each location then that is good (I
> didn't catch that first go around).
>
> Whether or not you need or want site links I think
> depends more on your WAN topology which I am
> completely lost on right now.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Desmond
>
brian@briandesmond.com<mailto:brian@briandesmond.com>
>
> c - 312.731.3132
> ________________________________
> From: Archive@mail.activedir.org
> [Archive@mail.activedir.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:19 PM
> To: Brian Desmond
> Subject: SubscribedEmail
> (8d6d496e-88a1-432b-8c9d-bab5973e7997)
>
> Thx for the info Brian! You mention GC responses..
> is
> it bad to have all DCs as GCs? That's what we're set
> at to hopefully have local GC queries ala Exchange.
> Exchange exists in our LAX site.
>
> As for logon times, won't users in each site logon
> thru their local DCs since we've defined sites or is
> there more to that? Not sure I understand when you
> say
> logon times are potentially higher/slower.
>
> As for creating the site links other admins say
> KISS,
> keep it simple. They believe creating these numerous
> links will add to replication times since the least
> it
> can be set to is 15 mins. Although the WAN truly
> isnt
> a triangle as ATL has no direct connect to LAX.
>
> This is what our WAN is like..
>
> SFO-LAX-PHX===HOU-ATL-CVG
>
> LAX and ATL are sort of like hubs as the edge
> offices
> are 'peered' to them, if that makes sense..
>
> For those most part domain1.com encompasses SFO,
> LAX,
> PHX, HOU, domain2.com are ATL and CVG.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
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
| | | |
| danholme
Posts:129
| | 03/06/2008 9:33 PM |
| IMO your best bet is to do the "correct" topology (match your site links
to your actual topology) as it helps things incl EX2007. Then since you
have fat pipes turn on Change Notification which makes intersite
replication work like intrasite replication.
I have a large global client that has a 37 SECOND (!!!!) convergence
window on their entire AD forest using that approach.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of RMS
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 4:15 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
Thanks for the input guys. If we do break up the
current single sitelink into a variety that match our
WAN topology, we will then start see true replication
delays from site to site (15 mins) especially on the
futher ends of chain, yes?
Brian, you mention Change Notifications as a way
around this? Pls correct if I'm wrong, change
notifications will bypass the minimum 15 minute
frequency and notify other sites that changes are here
come and get it? Which inevitably will work even
better than our current single sitelink!
--- "Gustafson, Eric (Oldcastle Materials)"
<eric.gustafson@oldcastlematerials.com> wrote:
> This will become more important when they go to
> deploy EX2K7 in their org.
>
> --Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian Desmond
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:29 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
>
> Given that I'd build the site links to match so you
> optimize your replication topology
>
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Desmond
> brian@briandesmond.com
>
> c - 312.731.3132
> ________________________________________
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of
> RMS [ramstryke@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:14 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
>
> Sorry for the confusion, yes we have separate sites
> created, for each of the offices.
>
> Our WAN is like this, if this shows up well in text
> (if not I posted a gif here
> http://b.imagehost.org/0209/wan.gif)..
>
> SFO ATL
> \ /
> LAX=HOU
> / \
> PHX CVG
>
> We have each site defined in AD, however, they all
> share the 1 common site link. I guess my problem is,
> should we mimic AD site links to how our physical
> WAN
> is, despite the great WAN lines we have. What are
> the
> pros/cons behind the way we are currently
> configured.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> --- Brian Desmond <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know why I got this reply out of band this
> way, but anyway...
>
> If the sites are setup and it's a single site link
> then that is different. I thought I read it was a
> single site covering all these locations.
>
>
> I don't understand your diagram as if you ask me you
> can't have a pair of hub sites connected via spokes.
> That wouldn't make them hubs.
>
> You could turn change notifaction on on the site
> links
> between these hubs to work around the 15 minute
> thing.
> I am unclear on your WAN topology now, but if you
> have
> sites defined for each location then that is good (I
> didn't catch that first go around).
>
> Whether or not you need or want site links I think
> depends more on your WAN topology which I am
> completely lost on right now.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Desmond
>
brian@briandesmond.com<mailto:brian@briandesmond.com>
>
> c - 312.731.3132
> ________________________________
> From: Archive@mail.activedir.org
> [Archive@mail.activedir.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:19 PM
> To: Brian Desmond
> Subject: SubscribedEmail
> (8d6d496e-88a1-432b-8c9d-bab5973e7997)
>
> Thx for the info Brian! You mention GC responses..
> is
> it bad to have all DCs as GCs? That's what we're set
> at to hopefully have local GC queries ala Exchange.
> Exchange exists in our LAX site.
>
> As for logon times, won't users in each site logon
> thru their local DCs since we've defined sites or is
> there more to that? Not sure I understand when you
> say
> logon times are potentially higher/slower.
>
> As for creating the site links other admins say
> KISS,
> keep it simple. They believe creating these numerous
> links will add to replication times since the least
> it
> can be set to is 15 mins. Although the WAN truly
> isnt
> a triangle as ATL has no direct connect to LAX.
>
> This is what our WAN is like..
>
> SFO-LAX-PHX===HOU-ATL-CVG
>
> LAX and ATL are sort of like hubs as the edge
> offices
> are 'peered' to them, if that makes sense..
>
> For those most part domain1.com encompasses SFO,
> LAX,
> PHX, HOU, domain2.com are ATL and CVG.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
____________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> 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
>
________________________________________________________________________
____________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
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
| | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:366
| | 03/06/2008 9:38 PM |
| Yes. Some places I see put this in their inter-hub site links.
In general I don't often see a need for convergence that fast though. What business or technical need do you actually have for two sites on either edge of your WAN to have 15 second consistency? I know nothing about your business but my guess is you haven't got a need.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com
c - 312.731.3132
________________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of RMS [ramstryke@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:14 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
Thanks for the input guys. If we do break up the
current single sitelink into a variety that match our
WAN topology, we will then start see true replication
delays from site to site (15 mins) especially on the
futher ends of chain, yes?
Brian, you mention Change Notifications as a way
around this? Pls correct if I'm wrong, change
notifications will bypass the minimum 15 minute
frequency and notify other sites that changes are here
come and get it? Which inevitably will work even
better than our current single sitelink!
--- "Gustafson, Eric (Oldcastle Materials)"
<eric.gustafson@oldcastlematerials.com> wrote:
> This will become more important when they go to
> deploy EX2K7 in their org.
>
> --Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian Desmond
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:29 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
>
> Given that I'd build the site links to match so you
> optimize your replication topology
>
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Desmond
> brian@briandesmond.com
>
> c - 312.731.3132
> ________________________________________
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of
> RMS [ramstryke@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:14 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
>
> Sorry for the confusion, yes we have separate sites
> created, for each of the offices.
>
> Our WAN is like this, if this shows up well in text
> (if not I posted a gif here
> http://b.imagehost.org/0209/wan.gif)..
>
> SFO ATL
> \ /
> LAX=HOU
> / \
> PHX CVG
>
> We have each site defined in AD, however, they all
> share the 1 common site link. I guess my problem is,
> should we mimic AD site links to how our physical
> WAN
> is, despite the great WAN lines we have. What are
> the
> pros/cons behind the way we are currently
> configured.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> --- Brian Desmond <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know why I got this reply out of band this
> way, but anyway...
>
> If the sites are setup and it's a single site link
> then that is different. I thought I read it was a
> single site covering all these locations.
>
>
> I don't understand your diagram as if you ask me you
> can't have a pair of hub sites connected via spokes.
> That wouldn't make them hubs.
>
> You could turn change notifaction on on the site
> links
> between these hubs to work around the 15 minute
> thing.
> I am unclear on your WAN topology now, but if you
> have
> sites defined for each location then that is good (I
> didn't catch that first go around).
>
> Whether or not you need or want site links I think
> depends more on your WAN topology which I am
> completely lost on right now.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Desmond
>
brian@briandesmond.com<mailto:brian@briandesmond.com>
>
> c - 312.731.3132
> ________________________________
> From: Archive@mail.activedir.org
> [Archive@mail.activedir.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:19 PM
> To: Brian Desmond
> Subject: SubscribedEmail
> (8d6d496e-88a1-432b-8c9d-bab5973e7997)
>
> Thx for the info Brian! You mention GC responses..
> is
> it bad to have all DCs as GCs? That's what we're set
> at to hopefully have local GC queries ala Exchange.
> Exchange exists in our LAX site.
>
> As for logon times, won't users in each site logon
> thru their local DCs since we've defined sites or is
> there more to that? Not sure I understand when you
> say
> logon times are potentially higher/slower.
>
> As for creating the site links other admins say
> KISS,
> keep it simple. They believe creating these numerous
> links will add to replication times since the least
> it
> can be set to is 15 mins. Although the WAN truly
> isnt
> a triangle as ATL has no direct connect to LAX.
>
> This is what our WAN is like..
>
> SFO-LAX-PHX===HOU-ATL-CVG
>
> LAX and ATL are sort of like hubs as the edge
> offices
> are 'peered' to them, if that makes sense..
>
> For those most part domain1.com encompasses SFO,
> LAX,
> PHX, HOU, domain2.com are ATL and CVG.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
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
| | | |
| ramstryke
Posts:20
| | 03/06/2008 11:28 PM |
| Nope no real need.. just impatient admins. Yep, its
annoying. Thanks for pointing out the options! I'm
just grateful they arent suggesting making everything
one site ala
(http://searchwinit.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid1_gci1255756,00.html)
I'm just the new guy trying to understand that there
are better ways.
--- Brian Desmond <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote:
> Yes. Some places I see put this in their inter-hub
> site links.
>
> In general I don't often see a need for convergence
> that fast though. What business or technical need do
> you actually have for two sites on either edge of
> your WAN to have 15 second consistency? I know
> nothing about your business but my guess is you
> haven't got a need.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Desmond
> brian@briandesmond.com
>
> c - 312.731.3132
> ________________________________________
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of
> RMS [ramstryke@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:14 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
>
> Thanks for the input guys. If we do break up the
> current single sitelink into a variety that match
> our
> WAN topology, we will then start see true
> replication
> delays from site to site (15 mins) especially on the
> futher ends of chain, yes?
>
> Brian, you mention Change Notifications as a way
> around this? Pls correct if I'm wrong, change
> notifications will bypass the minimum 15 minute
> frequency and notify other sites that changes are
> here
> come and get it? Which inevitably will work even
> better than our current single sitelink!
>
>
>
>
> --- "Gustafson, Eric (Oldcastle Materials)"
> <eric.gustafson@oldcastlematerials.com> wrote:
>
> > This will become more important when they go to
> > deploy EX2K7 in their org.
> >
> > --Eric
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> > [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On
> > Behalf Of Brian Desmond
> > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:29 PM
> > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
> >
> > Given that I'd build the site links to match so
> you
> > optimize your replication topology
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brian Desmond
> > brian@briandesmond.com
> >
> > c - 312.731.3132
> > ________________________________________
> > From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> > [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of
> > RMS [ramstryke@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:14 PM
> > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Criteria for Site Linking
> >
> > Sorry for the confusion, yes we have separate
> sites
> > created, for each of the offices.
> >
> > Our WAN is like this, if this shows up well in
> text
> > (if not I posted a gif here
> > http://b.imagehost.org/0209/wan.gif)..
> >
> > SFO ATL
> > \ /
> > LAX=HOU
> > / \
> > PHX CVG
> >
> > We have each site defined in AD, however, they all
> > share the 1 common site link. I guess my problem
> is,
> > should we mimic AD site links to how our physical
> > WAN
> > is, despite the great WAN lines we have. What are
> > the
> > pros/cons behind the way we are currently
> > configured.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Brian Desmond <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know why I got this reply out of band this
> > way, but anyway...
> >
> > If the sites are setup and it's a single site link
> > then that is different. I thought I read it was a
> > single site covering all these locations.
> >
> >
> > I don't understand your diagram as if you ask me
> you
> > can't have a pair of hub sites connected via
> spokes.
> > That wouldn't make them hubs.
> >
> > You could turn change notifaction on on the site
> > links
> > between these hubs to work around the 15 minute
> > thing.
> > I am unclear on your WAN topology now, but if you
> > have
> > sites defined for each location then that is good
> (I
> > didn't catch that first go around).
> >
> > Whether or not you need or want site links I think
> > depends more on your WAN topology which I am
> > completely lost on right now.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brian Desmond
> >
>
brian@briandesmond.com<mailto:brian@briandesmond.com>
> >
> > c - 312.731.3132
> > ________________________________
> > From: Archive@mail.activedir.org
> > [Archive@mail.activedir.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:19 PM
> > To: Brian Desmond
> > Subject: SubscribedEmail
> > (8d6d496e-88a1-432b-8c9d-bab5973e7997)
> >
> > Thx for the info Brian! You mention GC responses..
> > is
> > it bad to have all DCs as GCs? That's what we're
> set
> > at to hopefully have local GC queries ala
> Exchange.
> > Exchange exists in our LAX site.
> >
> > As for logon times, won't users in each site logon
> > thru their local DCs since we've defined sites or
> is
> > there more to that? Not sure I understand when you
> > say
> > logon times are potentially higher/slower.
> >
> > As for creating the site links other admins say
> > KISS,
> > keep it simple. They believe creating these
> numerous
> > links will add to replication times since the
> least
> > it
> > can be set to is 15 mins. Although the WAN truly
> > isnt
> > a triangle as ATL has no direct connect to LAX.
> >
> > This is what our WAN is like..
> >
> > SFO-LAX-PHX===HOU-ATL-CVG
> >
> > LAX and ATL are sort of like hubs as the edge
> > offices
> > are 'peered' to them, if that makes sense..
> >
> > For those most part domain1.com encompasses SFO,
> > LAX,
> > PHX, HOU, domain2.com are ATL and CVG.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > 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
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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
| | | |
|
|