| Author | Messages | |
abagnale_lists
Posts:16
 | | 12/14/2005 10:20 AM |
| | Message body was not found. | | | |
| ZJORZ
Posts:100
| | 12/14/2005 2:43 AM |
| In a single domain forest you should have all DCs as a GC. Why? There is no additional overhead in terms of replication and/or disk space needed. Only benefits. I would leave it as is
cheers,
jorge
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Frank Abagnale
Sent: Wed 12/14/2005 11:19 AM
To: Active
Subject: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
I currently have a single domain (w2k3 FFL) with approx 40 DC's. (1 for every site) They are all configured as GC's. I have approx 3500 users
The WAN connection speed ranges from 512k to 2mb.
I read somewhere that having every DC as a GC is unnecessary due to the increased amounts of bandwith replication.
My network is not exactly the quickest and with the other apps and services I am running e.g DNS, WINS, DFS/FRS, Exchange, Sharepoint etc,
This has led me to think maybe I should think about reducing the number of GC's in my forest
Does anyone have any views on decreasing the number of GC's to DC's? What would you recommend as a comfortable number of GC's
Frank
________________________________
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD000001286
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 2:54 AM |
| Frank,
We currently have a similar topology to yours. All of my
DC's are GC's. There is no disadvantage to this regarding replication
traffic as you are a single domain. I would continue using your current
model of every DC being a GC.
Regards,
Dave Chianese
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank
AbagnaleSent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:19 AMTo:
ActiveSubject: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global
Catalogs
I currently have a single domain (w2k3 FFL) with approx 40 DC's. (1 for
every site) They are all configured as GC's. I have approx 3500 users
The WAN connection speed ranges from 512k to 2mb.
I read somewhere that having every DC as a GC is unnecessary due to the
increased amounts of bandwith replication.
My network is not exactly the quickest and with the other apps and services
I am running e.g DNS, WINS, DFS/FRS, Exchange, Sharepoint etc,
This has led me to think maybe I should think about reducing the number of
GC's in my forest
Does anyone have any views on decreasing the number of GC's to DC's? What
would you recommend as a comfortable number of GC's
Frank
Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo!
Shopping | | | |
| AD00000893
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 3:16 AM |
| Below is a quote from the WindowsITPro magazine.
" If you have just one domain, Microsoft recommends that you make all
the domain controllers (DCs) GC servers so that your network won't incur
any extra space usage or processing. In essence, the infrastructure
Flexible Single Master Operation (FSMO) role still checks the GC for
many operations. By making all DCs GC servers, you can spread the FSMO's
request load to all DCs and prevent one DC from asking another DC for
information that the first DC already has. Although the FSMO can't
typically reside on a GC, you won't encounter any problems as long as
only one domain exists because the FSMO won't need to keep track of any
external domain objects."
-Z.V.
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| listmail
Posts:429
| | 12/14/2005 3:31 AM |
| Wow who wrote that article in the magazine? That is pretty bad.
The end result is the same though as stated by everyone so far. If you have
a single domain there is only slight overhead if you make all DCs into GCs.
The only overhead I can really think of is that you will have more global
catalog DNS records and all DCs are listening on an extra 1-2 ports... That
is easily outweighed by the gain of having lots of GC availability.
Not sure what space usage you would incur by NOT doing it as indicated by
the article. The whole IM role thing is pretty oddly described as well.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Za Vue
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:09 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
Below is a quote from the WindowsITPro magazine.
" If you have just one domain, Microsoft recommends that you make all the
domain controllers (DCs) GC servers so that your network won't incur any
extra space usage or processing. In essence, the infrastructure Flexible
Single Master Operation (FSMO) role still checks the GC for many operations.
By making all DCs GC servers, you can spread the FSMO's request load to all
DCs and prevent one DC from asking another DC for information that the first
DC already has. Although the FSMO can't typically reside on a GC, you won't
encounter any problems as long as only one domain exists because the FSMO
won't need to keep track of any external domain objects."
-Z.V.
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD00000893
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 3:57 AM |
| Who wrote it?
*************************************************************************************************************J
John Savill
John Savill is Director of Technical Infrastructure for Geniant. He is a
CISSP, a Security and Messaging MCSE on Windows Server 2003, a six-time
MVP, and a Krav Maga instructor. He is also the author of Windows Server
2003 Active Directory Design and Implementation from Packt Publishing
(http://www.packtpub.com/book/active_directory).
Email address: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*****************************************************************************************************************
joe wrote:
Wow who wrote that article in the magazine? That is pretty bad.
The end result is the same though as stated by everyone so far. If you have
a single domain there is only slight overhead if you make all DCs into GCs.
The only overhead I can really think of is that you will have more global
catalog DNS records and all DCs are listening on an extra 1-2 ports... That
is easily outweighed by the gain of having lots of GC availability.
Not sure what space usage you would incur by NOT doing it as indicated by
the article. The whole IM role thing is pretty oddly described as well.
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| Antknee
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 4:06 AM |
| John is right though. If all DCs are GCs, putting the IM role on a GC
isn't a problem.
Thank You,
Anthony Scott
Berbee
4690 E. Fulton Dr., Bldg. C
Ada, Michigan 49301
(616) 481-9722
(616) 464-6369
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Za Vue
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:45 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
Who wrote it?
************************************************************************
*************************************J
John Savill
John Savill is Director of Technical Infrastructure for Geniant. He is a
CISSP, a Security and Messaging MCSE on Windows Server 2003, a six-time
MVP, and a Krav Maga instructor. He is also the author of Windows Server
2003 Active Directory Design and Implementation from Packt Publishing
(http://www.packtpub.com/book/active_directory).
Email address: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
************************************************************************
*****************************************
joe wrote:
>Wow who wrote that article in the magazine? That is pretty bad.
>
>The end result is the same though as stated by everyone so far. If you
have
>a single domain there is only slight overhead if you make all DCs into
GCs.
>The only overhead I can really think of is that you will have more
global
>catalog DNS records and all DCs are listening on an extra 1-2 ports...
That
>is easily outweighed by the gain of having lots of GC availability.
>
>Not sure what space usage you would incur by NOT doing it as indicated
by
>the article. The whole IM role thing is pretty oddly described as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD00000804
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 4:31 AM |
| The issue with IM on GCs is solved in Windows 2003 for multi-domain
forests...
Chuck | | | |
| AD000001290
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 4:32 AM |
| I think John's article is pseudo-accurate but *very* badly worded, if I
can be candid.
I had to re-read it several times.
neil
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Za Vue
Sent: 14 December 2005 15:45
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
Who wrote it?
************************************************************************
*************************************J
John Savill
John Savill is Director of Technical Infrastructure for Geniant. He is a
CISSP, a Security and Messaging MCSE on Windows Server 2003, a six-time
MVP, and a Krav Maga instructor. He is also the author of Windows Server
2003 Active Directory Design and Implementation from Packt Publishing
(http://www.packtpub.com/book/active_directory).
Email address: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
************************************************************************
*****************************************
joe wrote:
>Wow who wrote that article in the magazine? That is pretty bad.
>
>The end result is the same though as stated by everyone so far. If you
>have a single domain there is only slight overhead if you make all DCs
into GCs.
>The only overhead I can really think of is that you will have more
>global catalog DNS records and all DCs are listening on an extra 1-2
>ports... That is easily outweighed by the gain of having lots of GC
availability.
>
>Not sure what space usage you would incur by NOT doing it as indicated
>by the article. The whole IM role thing is pretty oddly described as
well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended
recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete your
copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any further
action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of communication and
Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted by law,
accept responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or completeness of,
or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling
code in, this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of this
email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated
this email: (1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as,
investment research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended
for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation or
offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc
does not provide investment services to private customers. Authorised and
regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England
no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand,
London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies.
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| deji
Posts:132
| | 12/14/2005 5:17 AM |
| I don't think Joe is disagreeing with THAT point. John has the general idea,
but his description/explanation is somewhat .... shall we say ......glossy.
Sincerely,
Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Scott, Anthony
Sent: Wed 12/14/2005 8:01 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
John is right though. If all DCs are GCs, putting the IM role on a GC
isn't a problem.
Thank You,
Anthony Scott
Berbee
4690 E. Fulton Dr., Bldg. C
Ada, Michigan 49301
(616) 481-9722
(616) 464-6369
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Za Vue
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:45 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
Who wrote it?
************************************************************************
*************************************J
John Savill
John Savill is Director of Technical Infrastructure for Geniant. He is a
CISSP, a Security and Messaging MCSE on Windows Server 2003, a six-time
MVP, and a Krav Maga instructor. He is also the author of Windows Server
2003 Active Directory Design and Implementation from Packt Publishing
(http://www.packtpub.com/book/active_directory).
Email address: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
************************************************************************
*****************************************
joe wrote:
>Wow who wrote that article in the magazine? That is pretty bad.
>
>The end result is the same though as stated by everyone so far. If you
have
>a single domain there is only slight overhead if you make all DCs into
GCs.
>The only overhead I can really think of is that you will have more
global
>catalog DNS records and all DCs are listening on an extra 1-2 ports...
That
>is easily outweighed by the gain of having lots of GC availability.
>
>Not sure what space usage you would incur by NOT doing it as indicated
by
>the article. The whole IM role thing is pretty oddly described as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD000001290
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 6:00 AM |
| Really, how so?
I 'solve' it by insisting
that all DCs be GCs.
neil
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
ChuckGaff@xxxxxxxSent: 14 December 2005 16:15To:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] Reducing number
of Global Catalogs
The issue with IM on GCs is solved in Windows 2003 for multi-domain
forests...
Chuck
PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended
recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete your
copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any further
action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of communication and
Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted by law,
accept responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or completeness of,
or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling
code in, this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of this
email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated
this email: (1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as,
investment research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended
for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation or
offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc
does not provide investment services to private customers. Authorised and
regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England
no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand,
London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies. | | | |
| AD00000804
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 7:08 AM |
| Actually I prefer that all DCs be GCs and can't see why you wouldn't
do that globally at this point in time.
Chuck | | | |
| psimpsen
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 7:32 AM |
| Let me ask if there is any issue with IM
if all your DC™s are GC™s in your domain, which is a child, but not
all the DC™s in the forest are GC™s? We have been refreshing our DC™s
and making all GC™s but the IM is running on the last one to refresh
which is not a GC. We plan on transferring this role to a GC while we
refreshing the DC it currently resides on. It will be a GC when finished.
Should I/we rethink this? We are at function level 2003.
Paul
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of neil.ruston@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005
10:47 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Reducing
number of Global Catalogs
Really, how so?
I 'solve' it by insisting that all DCs be
GCs.
neil
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ChuckGaff@xxxxxxx
Sent: 14 December 2005 16:15
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Reducing
number of Global Catalogs
The issue with IM on GCs
is solved in Windows 2003 for multi-domain forests...
Chuck
PLEASE READ: The information contained in
this email is confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you are not an intended
recipient of this email please notify the
sender immediately and delete your
copy from your system. You must not copy,
distribute or take any further
action in reliance on it. Email is not a
secure method of communication and
Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will
not, to the extent permitted by law,
accept responsibility or liability for
(a) the accuracy or completeness of,
or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or
similar malicious or disabling
code in, this message or any
attachment(s) to it. If verification of this
email is sought then please request a
hard copy. Unless otherwise stated
this email: (1) is not, and should not be
treated or relied upon as,
investment research; (2) contains views
or opinions that are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily
represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended
for informational purposes only and is
not a recommendation, solicitation or
offer to buy or sell securities or
related financial instruments. NIplc
does not provide investment services to
private customers. Authorised and
regulated by the Financial Services
Authority. Registered in England
no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35.
Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand,
London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies. | | | |
| listmail
Posts:429
| | 12/14/2005 7:33 AM |
| Yep. Basically the end result is the same, just don't agree with the
phrasing much.
The best descriptions I have seen have been by Dean Wells. If you search the
newsgroups and adorg archives for Dean and Infrastructure Master and
Phantoms you will find some pretty in depth discussions. He even describes
how to see the update objects using adfind.
joe
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:31 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
I don't think Joe is disagreeing with THAT point. John has the general idea,
but his description/explanation is somewhat .... shall we say ......glossy.
Sincerely,
Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Scott, Anthony
Sent: Wed 12/14/2005 8:01 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
John is right though. If all DCs are GCs, putting the IM role on a GC isn't
a problem.
Thank You,
Anthony Scott
Berbee
4690 E. Fulton Dr., Bldg. C
Ada, Michigan 49301
(616) 481-9722
(616) 464-6369
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Za Vue
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:45 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
Who wrote it?
************************************************************************
*************************************J
John Savill
John Savill is Director of Technical Infrastructure for Geniant. He is a
CISSP, a Security and Messaging MCSE on Windows Server 2003, a six-time MVP,
and a Krav Maga instructor. He is also the author of Windows Server
2003 Active Directory Design and Implementation from Packt Publishing
(http://www.packtpub.com/book/active_directory).
Email address: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
************************************************************************
*****************************************
joe wrote:
>Wow who wrote that article in the magazine? That is pretty bad.
>
>The end result is the same though as stated by everyone so far. If you
have
>a single domain there is only slight overhead if you make all DCs into
GCs.
>The only overhead I can really think of is that you will have more
global
>catalog DNS records and all DCs are listening on an extra 1-2 ports...
That
>is easily outweighed by the gain of having lots of GC availability.
>
>Not sure what space usage you would incur by NOT doing it as indicated
by
>the article. The whole IM role thing is pretty oddly described as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| listmail
Posts:429
| | 12/14/2005 8:04 AM |
| In large multidomain
corporate environments with hundreds of DCs and WAN sites tend to have very
limited bandwidth (or bandwidth is allocated to some critical LOB and AD and
everything else picks up the scraps) or lesser equipment and honestly there
is no reason for a 10GB or bigger DIT in a site with 50 users describing the
info of some 200k other users and computers that they really don't care about.
The exception for that would be if Exchange was local or some other app that
absolutely required a local GC.
It makes ~Eric cringe
every time I say it but I like the IgnoreGCFailures reg key in large
environments over GC caching and Universal Security groups.
I was all about every DC
being a GC when the 250k user AD I ran only had NOS info. Once we started
populating AD with app and Exchange data we quickly pulled back all
GCs to the regional Data Centers.
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
ChuckGaff@xxxxxxxSent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:09
PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir]
Reducing number of Global Catalogs
Actually I prefer that all DCs be GCs and can't see why you wouldn't
do that globally at this point in time.
Chuck | | | |
| Antknee
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 8:35 AM |
| No issue.
Thank You,
Anthony Scott
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simpsen, Paul A. (HSC)
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005
2:09 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Reducing
number of Global Catalogs
Let me ask if there is any issue with IM
if all your DC™s are GC™s in your domain, which is a child, but not
all the DC™s in the forest are GC™s? We have been refreshing our
DC™s and making all GC™s but the IM is running on the last one to
refresh which is not a GC. We plan on transferring this role to a GC while we
refreshing the DC it currently resides on. It will be a GC when finished.
Should I/we rethink this? We are at function level 2003.
Paul
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of neil.ruston@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005
10:47 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Reducing
number of Global Catalogs
Really, how so?
I 'solve' it by insisting that all DCs be
GCs.
neil
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ChuckGaff@xxxxxxx
Sent: 14 December 2005 16:15
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Reducing
number of Global Catalogs
The issue with IM on GCs
is solved in Windows 2003 for multi-domain forests...
Chuck
PLEASE READ: The information contained in
this email is confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you are not an intended
recipient of this email please notify the
sender immediately and delete your
copy from your system. You must not copy,
distribute or take any further
action in reliance on it. Email is not a
secure method of communication and
Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will
not, to the extent permitted by law,
accept responsibility or liability for
(a) the accuracy or completeness of,
or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or
similar malicious or disabling
code in, this message or any attachment(s)
to it. If verification of this
email is sought then please request a
hard copy. Unless otherwise stated
this email: (1) is not, and should not be
treated or relied upon as,
investment research; (2) contains views
or opinions that are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily
represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended
for informational purposes only and is
not a recommendation, solicitation or
offer to buy or sell securities or
related financial instruments. NIplc
does not provide investment services to
private customers. Authorised and
regulated by the Financial Services
Authority. Registered in England
no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35.
Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand,
London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies. | | | |
| TonyTest
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 8:46 AM |
| "If you have just one domain, Microsoft recommends that you make all the
domain controllers (DCs) GC servers so that your network won't incur any
extra space usage or processing. In essence, the infrastructure Flexible
Single Master Operation (FSMO) role still checks the GC for many
operations."
That second sentence is just plain wrong in the context of a single
domain forest, isn't it? The IM is responsible for maintaining
references from objects in its own domain to objects in other domains,
so if there is a single domain then it doesn't actually have anything to
do. That's my understanding anyway.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
neil.ruston@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 5:14 a.m.
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
I think John's article is pseudo-accurate but *very* badly worded, if I
can be candid.
I had to re-read it several times.
neil
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Za Vue
Sent: 14 December 2005 15:45
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
Who wrote it?
************************************************************************
*************************************J
John Savill
John Savill is Director of Technical Infrastructure for Geniant. He is a
CISSP, a Security and Messaging MCSE on Windows Server 2003, a six-time
MVP, and a Krav Maga instructor. He is also the author of Windows Server
2003 Active Directory Design and Implementation from Packt Publishing
(http://www.packtpub.com/book/active_directory).
Email address: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
************************************************************************
*****************************************
joe wrote:
>Wow who wrote that article in the magazine? That is pretty bad.
>
>The end result is the same though as stated by everyone so far. If you
>have a single domain there is only slight overhead if you make all DCs
into GCs.
>The only overhead I can really think of is that you will have more
>global catalog DNS records and all DCs are listening on an extra 1-2
>ports... That is easily outweighed by the gain of having lots of GC
availability.
>
>Not sure what space usage you would incur by NOT doing it as indicated
>by the article. The whole IM role thing is pretty oddly described as
well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended
recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete
your copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any
further action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of
communication and Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the
extent permitted by law, accept responsibility or liability for (a) the
accuracy or completeness of, or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or
similar malicious or disabling code in, this message or any
attachment(s) to it. If verification of this email is sought then please
request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated this email: (1) is not, and
should not be treated or relied upon as, investment research; (2)
contains views or opinions that are solely those of the author and do
not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended for
informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation or
offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc
does not provide investment services to private customers. Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in
England no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St
Martin's-le-Grand, London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of
companies.
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
ail.activedir.org/
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| ZJORZ
Posts:100
| | 12/14/2005 8:57 AM |
| ________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Simpsen, Paul A. (HSC)
Sent: Wed 12/14/2005 8:09 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
Let me ask if there is any issue with IM if all your DC's are GC's in your domain, which is a child, but not all the DC's in the forest are GC's? We have been refreshing our DC's and making all GC's but the IM is running on the last one to refresh which is not a GC. We plan on transferring this role to a GC while we refreshing the DC it currently resides on. It will be a GC when finished. Should I/we rethink this? We are at function level 2003.
Paul
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of neil.ruston@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:47 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
Really, how so?
I 'solve' it by insisting that all DCs be GCs.
neil
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ChuckGaff@xxxxxxx
Sent: 14 December 2005 16:15
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global Catalogs
The issue with IM on GCs is solved in Windows 2003 for multi-domain forests...
Chuck
PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended
recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete your
copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any further
action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of communication and
Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted by law,
accept responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or completeness of,
or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling
code in, this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of this
email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated
this email: (1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as,
investment research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended
for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation or
offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc
does not provide investment services to private customers. Authorised and
regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England
no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand,
London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies.
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
> | | | |
| psimpsen
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 10:32 AM |
| Appreciate the input, it verified what I
had thought. But when I started seeing if single
domain, etc¦. well I had to ask. And yes refreshing = dcpromo out and
dcpromo on new HW.
Thanks
Paul
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Almeida Pinto, Jorge de
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005
2:15 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Reducing
number of Global Catalogs
The IM is a domain FSMO role. SO the only
concern is WITHIN the domain....
No matter what forest structure you have for each domain the
following applies:
* If all DCs in a domain are GC, there is no other choice
where to put the IM. So no issue here
* If at least other DCs in a domain (besides the IM) are not
a GC, then the IM should not be on a GC
your method will work as long as the last DC, that is not a
GC, being refreshed (do you mean re-installed?) is also the IM
cheers
Jorge
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
on behalf of Simpsen, Paul A. (HSC)
Sent: Wed 12/14/2005 8:09 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Reducing
number of Global Catalogs
Let me ask if there is any issue with IM
if all your DC™s are GC™s in your domain, which is a child, but not
all the DC™s in the forest are GC™s? We have been refreshing our
DC™s and making all GC™s but the IM is running on the last one to
refresh which is not a GC. We plan on transferring this role to a GC while we
refreshing the DC it currently resides on. It will be a GC when finished.
Should I/we rethink this? We are at function level 2003.
Paul
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of neil.ruston@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005
10:47 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Reducing
number of Global Catalogs
Really, how so?
I 'solve' it by insisting that all DCs be
GCs.
neil
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of ChuckGaff@xxxxxxx
Sent: 14 December 2005 16:15
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Reducing
number of Global Catalogs
The issue with IM on GCs
is solved in Windows 2003 for multi-domain forests...
Chuck
PLEASE READ: The information contained in
this email is confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you are not an intended
recipient of this email please notify the
sender immediately and delete your
copy from your system. You must not copy,
distribute or take any further
action in reliance on it. Email is not a
secure method of communication and
Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will
not, to the extent permitted by law,
accept responsibility or liability for
(a) the accuracy or completeness of,
or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or
similar malicious or disabling
code in, this message or any
attachment(s) to it. If verification of this
email is sought then please request a
hard copy. Unless otherwise stated
this email: (1) is not, and should not be
treated or relied upon as,
investment research; (2) contains views
or opinions that are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily
represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended
for informational purposes only and is
not a recommendation, solicitation or
offer to buy or sell securities or
related financial instruments. NIplc
does not provide investment services to
private customers. Authorised and
regulated by the Financial Services
Authority. Registered in England
no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35.
Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand,
London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies. | | | |
| AD000001290
Posts:0
| | 12/14/2005 10:34 AM |
| In a single domain forest, there is little point reducing
the number of GCs. There is only one domain partition and so DCs and GCs alike,
receive the same replication traffic.
Furthermore, Exch needs good connectivity to a GC and
clients need to contact (by default) a GC at logon, so removing GCs from the
forest should not be undertaken lightly.
my 2 penneth,
neil
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank
AbagnaleSent: 14 December 2005 10:19To:
ActiveSubject: [ActiveDir] Reducing number of Global
Catalogs
I currently have a single domain (w2k3 FFL) with approx 40 DC's. (1 for
every site) They are all configured as GC's. I have approx 3500 users
The WAN connection speed ranges from 512k to 2mb.
I read somewhere that having every DC as a GC is unnecessary due to the
increased amounts of bandwith replication.
My network is not exactly the quickest and with the other apps and services
I am running e.g DNS, WINS, DFS/FRS, Exchange, Sharepoint etc,
This has led me to think maybe I should think about reducing the number of
GC's in my forest
Does anyone have any views on decreasing the number of GC's to DC's? What
would you recommend as a comfortable number of GC's
Frank
Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo!
Shopping PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended
recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete your
copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any further
action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of communication and
Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted by law,
accept responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or completeness of,
or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling
code in, this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of this
email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated
this email: (1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as,
investment research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended
for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation or
offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc
does not provide investment services to private customers. Authorised and
regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England
no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand,
London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies. | | | |
|
|