Michael, Sheez...The Zone Transfers alone must be mind boggling :)
Do you see any performance hits with so many zones? I'm not seeing any so far, but I am curious if I will. I do notice the startup time of DNS is wretched, but that I expected on bootup. Jef -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 7:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS, Reverse and Limit I've got 809 zones in production, right now. Standard primaries tho (not A/D integrated). -----Original Message----- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 7:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS, Reverse and Limit Two things. I've not noticed a limit to the number of zones, but I've also only tried about 100 (but that was in production, so take that for whatever its worth). Second - manually entered records don't get scavenged, only those which are dynamically registered. Therefore, you should be able to enable scavenging then use dnscmd.exe from the reskit to force age all records. When I've migrated DNS from Unix/BIND to Windows 2000, I've always done it via a zone transfer from BIND to Windows, then changing the zone to AD Integrated. In that experience, none of the records brought over via the xfer process are marked for aging, so I see no reason to worry about it at this point. Personally, I'd keep the supernetted reverse zones - we use class B ranges for our hub offices, and I just roll all the subnets (usually between 5 and 20) into a single reverse zone. -------------------------------------------------------------- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jef Kazimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 4:17 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [ActiveDir] DNS, Reverse and Limit > > > ok....Try to stick with me, as I explain this mess. > > Having inherited DNS, it appears that scavenging was never put on for > the DHCP scopes, and there are over 60k of "dead" > PTR records to clean up. Unfortunately it was never turned on, since > the fear of static records being wiped in the process if addresses had > time stamps on them. > > Originally they had Class B addresses, but there is a clear > designation of Dynamic subnets and static subnets, so we are > converting the class B to class C's since the zone level is where we > can set scavenging times, and what not. > > The problem with this is, it will create a HUGE number of reverse > zones (looking at around 600-1000!) > > My question is, is there are a hard limit as to how many zones that > can be handled? > > With the cleaned up zones there might be only a few records per zone > (some had over 1500!!!), so the data might not be that high. It's > just spread out amongst many zones. > > Jef > > > 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/
