| Author | Messages | |
neilruston
Posts:123
 | | 05/02/2008 9:28 AM |
| I never understood why u'd want to throw a ball into a basket ... all
very odd 
Honestly - I went to watch Cleveland v Chicago when at DEC - great
stuff! LeBron James looks as tho he's one for the future :-^
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Rocky Habeeb
Sent: 02 May 2008 13:58
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WINS? Ick. WAS [OT] introduction
Darren,
"Chauncey will have to deal with Kevin ... soon enough."
"And Kevin et al ... will right the wrong ..."
"He He He"
RH
________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org]On Behalf Of Darren Mar-Elia
Sent: 02 May, 2008 1:03 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WINS? Ick. WAS [OT] introduction
Joe-
The combination of the length of your response, and the fact that your
Pistons slaughtered my Sixers, has put me in a bad mood. But I will rise
above it and say that I value your experiences with DNS more than mine,
so I
respect your points. Much of my experience with WINS came from its
early,
early days (and since I'm older than you, those were *early* days) and
it
has definitely improved. My early experience with WINS was anything but
"set
it and forget it". Mind numbing is a good word to describe WINS then and
my
experiences were also across multiple large environments. One thing I
will
say is that many large companies have dedicated DNS teams because DNS
has
traditionally played a MUCH larger role in those environments (long
before
Windows arrived) where mission critical apps running on Unix and the
mainframe relied on it, so I don't count that as an indicator of the
difficulty of DNS. In fact, in one large environment I worked in, DNS
ran
like clockwork (pre-AD days) and was managed by one guy for an
organization
with thousands of servers.
I will say that I heard in the not-too-distant past that DNS was MS'
number
1 support issue, which surprised me, but then again, AD being as
critical as
it is in most companies, I can understand it.
As for hierarchical vs. flat, for me it has less to do machine name
uniqueness than organizational (as in ability to organize) benefits and,
as
you mention, delegation. But this discussion didn't start as a feature
comparison, so I won't dwell too much on that. Bottom line is that both
WINS
and MS-DNS as they are often used today are multi-master replicated,
distributed databases that (typically) rely on client machines
self-registering (and un-registering) with them dynamically and are
responsible for their own grooming. That set of technologies is just a
recipe for complexity and the only thing that will save either
technology is
good tight management and monitoring.
Darren "Wait til next year Chauncy" Mar-Elia
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:09 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WINS? Ick. WAS [OT] introduction
Your comments don't reflect my experience with it; especially when
compared
to DNS and I deal with many very large environments and have substantial
daily experience with them in everyone's favorite Fortune 5.... Err
Fortune
10 company (they were Fortune 5 when I worked there, teaches them for
letting me go). I have dealth with far more mind numbing DNS issues over
the
last 10 years than WINS issues.
My experience with WINS is you tend to set it up (i.e. Install and
select
one or more replication partners) and off it goes. Occasionally you
might
jetpack the DBs. The big issues seem to be around misconfigured client
machines (both servers and workstations). The biggest issues I have ever
really had with it were darn SAMBA boxes and admins who didn't know how
to
configure resource servers (usually they installed WINS service).
As an aside, I have never seen a company with a dedicated WINS support
group... Just about every company I deal with has a dedicated DNS
support
group.
Never really had issues with replication other than network problems, if
that occurred then you scheduled a pull as soon as the network issue was
cleared up (WINS doesn't really ever push, it is all pull replication).
I think one of the big issues most people had with WINS is that they
didn't
monitor it. Likely because they couldn't figure out how to monitor it.
Again
MSFT wasn't so kind there. So things that were little issues turned into
mountain issues and even if WINS went months without any problem the
resulting issue that occurred got to be so big it left a mark on people.
This isn't just me feeling it was better; we would do ticket reviews
looking
back over periods of time and WINS was never even a blip on the radar
for
issue to be dealt with in some comprehensive manner.
Agreed there was no CNAME functionality, had shorter names, the suffixes
to
me are no different than the SRV records and I don't agree with the
generally speaking as I mentioned before I occasionally had to jetpack.
It
was so infrequently my team mates didn't even know about the tool. Worse
comes to worse with the DB you delete the file and pull a new one from
your
partner or even worse comes to worse you pop your servers with a netbios
name registration refresh request.
I don't care about the CNAME and shorter names for the WINS problem
scope
because it really didn't much matter. It is an intranet tool, I am not
saying use it for internet use. Use it for internal resources for your
internal users - probably about 90% of the work done in most IT groups.
I
know I know, not all environments are homogenious, in fact, I personally
have never worked on a homogeniuous network. The networks I have worked
on
have had everything from every flavor of Windows to every flavor of Cray
to
every flavor of just about every vendor's UNIX and most flavors of
mainframes and miniframes with giant teradata data mining systems and
engineering super computers that calculate car crash results and
everything
else but in every case, every case, the number of non-windows machines
was
barely a rounding error. DNS was available for them just the same.
The flat namespace... Well that is a fun one right? What is WINS used
for?
Resolution of machine names. In general, and I say in general, in the
Windows world the design goal is a single domain forest. That would mean
all
of the machines if done in a standard MSFT way were in a flat namespace
as
well. Take it further and go with a multidomain forest environment and
you
still can't properly reuse the same machine name in multiple domains in
the
forest, so flat namespace still works fine. But even if you say wow we
can
do the same machine name in different name spaces, I don't think it is a
very good idea within a company, it is a great way to confuse the heck
out
of people because, just as it was 10 years ago, users still think in
terms
of short host names within the confines of the intranet. Even admins do
it... Go into any company and ask one of the admins, what DC or what
file
and print server is in site XYZ... I expect the most popular answer will
be
a single host name response, not an FQDN.
"Some of the folks" seem to be thinking I am saying dump DNS for WINS...
Or
WINS rocks, DNS is for losers. I am not, I am saying I like WINS over
DNS
for intranet Windows purposes. I like WINS because it is a very simple
design and most companies do not need a complicated name resolution
infrastructure design for Windows. The one cool thing DNS, IMO, has over
WINS for Windows intranets is a hierarchy that would be cool for
administrative access delegation and they don't even have the tools set
up
to take advantage of it.
joe
--
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 Darren Mar-Elia
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 11:58 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
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
Barclays Wealth is the wealth management division of Barclays Bank PLC. This email may relate to or be sent from other members of the Barclays Group.
The availability of products and services may be limited by the applicable laws and regulations in certain jurisdictions. The Barclays Group does not normally accept or offer business instructions via internet email. Any action that you might take upon this message might be at your own risk.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or its attachments.
Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. The Barclays Group does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses. Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays Group for operational or business reasons.
Any opinion or other information in this email or its attachments that does not relate to the business of the Barclays Group is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by the Barclays Group.
Barclays Bank PLC. Registered in England and Wales (registered no. 1026167).
Registered Office: 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP, United Kingdom.
Barclays Bank PLC is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
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
| | | |
|
|