| Author | Messages | |
darren
Posts:119
 | | 05/01/2008 12:02 PM |
| 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
| | | |
|
|