Jef,
Thank you very much for taking time to detail the flow of aging and
scaveging.
"So If the Scavenge date on the zone is 11-14-2003, it will be availiable
to be scavenged on that date/time."
---> this has been my problem. The zone can be scavenged after is still
showing 01/7/1601 but my record time stamp under the zone is today's date
11/13/2003 ( after dnscmd /ageallrecord ). I don't think the scavangeing
will take place with year of 1601. The aging/scavenging has been turned on
at server,zone level. What gives ?
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Regards,
Sandy
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Jef Kazimer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
ail.activedir.org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
11/13/2003 01:21 Subject
PM re: [ActiveDir] dns aging with
01/7/1601
Please respond to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tivedir.org
Sandy,
Sorry for no Reply...
The Scavenge date will be on the Zone properties. The TS on the record
tells the zone that the record is availiable to be scavenged. So if the
Scavenge date on the record is greater than the date for the zone, it will
be scavenged.
So If the Scavenge date on the zone is 11-14-2003, it will be availiable
to be scavenged on that date/time. Then when scavenging is done, it looks
at the records, and it's time stamps. If your TTL is 7 days, and it finds
a record that has not been updated/refreshed in GREATER than 7 days, it
will be scavenged.
For scavenging to take place, The Server, Zone, and Record must have
scavenging turned on. Records without a Timestamp will be ignored during
scavenging. And scavenging will NOT scavenge records with Timestamps older
than when Scavenging was turned on for the zone. This is why you need to
age all records after turning it on.
So the Scavenge date for the zone is 11-14-2003. your scavenging date is
7/7. you run the age all records for the zone command, and it adds the
timestamp of 11-13-2003.
On 11-14-2003 no records will be scavenged since the records timestamp is
only 1 day old. But when it scavenges in 7 days from now on the
11-21-2003, If a record has not been refreshed with a newer timestamp than
11-13-2003, all those records will be scavenged on 11-21 since the 7/7
period is set. If a record has a newer timestamp (11-17-2003..) it will
remain, or if it has no timestamp it will remain.
You can use DNSCMD to export all the records if you need too. Or use the
DNSRESOURCE.VBS to export it as well.
If you reload the records make sure you are part of the DNSUPDATEPROXY
group so that DHCP/users can update (refresh the timestamp) the records
otherwise they will be scavenged during the next period.
J
Original Message:
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: re: [ActiveDir] dns aging with 01/7/1601
>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:03:18 -0600
>
>
>
>
>
>Ok, I have now run the dnscmd /ageallrecords in one reverse lookup zone.
>With this command , I see the time stamp on each record under this zone
>has been changed to today's date. But my question is still not answered.
>The Timestamp for the zone ( at zone aging/scavengign property page) is
>till 01/7/1601. According to MS, I am supposed to see the next scavenging
>date from this page so I can have an idea about when to happen.
>
>Anyone out there has done this dns aging/scavenging before ? I would
>really appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>Sandy
>
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>
> Sandy
> Wu/section13/lado
> td/us To
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 11/13/2003 07:18 cc
> AM
> Subject
> re: [ActiveDir] dns aging with
> 01/7/1601(Document link: Sandy Wu)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Jef,
>
>Thank you very much for your reply. Your thought is really pointing me to
>a closer track now.
>
> Nope, I have not done ageallrecords. If I am reading you right, it
>sounds like in addition to turn on the aging/scavenging at dns level, zone
>level , I also need to do ageallrecords to take care the pre-existing
>records. Also the timestamp ( at zone aging/scavengign property page) will
>not reflect the current date if ageallrecords step is missing. Is this
>correct ?
>I will need to back up my DNS first , before making any changes. Please
>advise if I am mis-interpreting anything. Thanks
>
>
>
>
>Sandy
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>
> "Jef Kazimer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: To
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> ail.activedir.org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc
>
> 11/12/2003 03:18 Subject
> PM re: [ActiveDir] dns aging with
> 01/7/1601
>
> Please respond to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> tivedir.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Have you done the Age All Records (DNSCMD /AgeAllrecords command)
>
>Records with TS before Scavenging was turned on at the server/domain level
>will not be scavenged, so you need to AgeAllRecords after enabling
>scavenging.
>
>It will inherit the scavengeing attributes from the zone itself.
>
>your new timestamp will be that of when you ran the command, and if it is
>not refreshed between then and scavenging date, it will be cleaned up.
>
>Make sure you remove the "Age this record" check box thingy (I forgot the
>syntax) on the record for any static records you don't want to disapear.
>
>
>Jef
>
>Original Message:
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: [ActiveDir] dns aging with 01/7/1601
>>Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:35:22 -0600
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi,
>>I am tryign to resolve the dns aging timestamp 01/7/1601 --.
>>Can any one explain why I am still seeing the 01/7/1601 timestamp at the
>>aging property after I have already enabled the aging/scavenging feature
>at
>>our dns server , forward zones and some selective ( want to see the
impact
>>first before the full implementations) reverse lookup zones?
>>
>>This is a win2k sp4 active directory domain but the dns server is not
>>integrated with active directory . Would this even matter? The dns server
>>is win2k with sp4 and it allows dynamic udpates from win2k clients. I
need
>>to clean up the PTR because many stale ptr records exist at many zones.
>>Any help is welcome. Thank you.
>>
>>
>>Sandy
>>Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
>>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
>>List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>>
>>
>
>
>List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>
>List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
>List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
