Thanks to all who gave input on this. I have since spoken to consultants from both MS and Compaq about this. Strangely, they both recommended configuring the Sites covering the physical locations that have DCs to include the subnets of the other physical locations that do not.
The main reason for doing it this way is apparently that creating a potentially large number of Sites (with no DC) increases the load on the KCC. Tony -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of OFFORD, Vivian Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 9:58 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] AD Sites with no DC In the project I've been working on there are a large number of sites but few of these have domain controllers. The former method of creating all the sites in the AD has been selected for the reasons you've already said plus if DCs are added to currently DC-less sites there is less config to do. Like Tony says, its more work but it fits in better with the MS recommended approach. It could also be simpler to understand, depending on the network design. If there is no site for a computer in the AD then an event log error message is written, to at least one DC, which helpfully suggests that it would be a good idea to create a suitable site. Viv -----Original Message----- From: Tony Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 22 March 2002 15:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ActiveDir] AD Sites with no DC I have a question regarding AD Sites and the best approach for physical locations connected to the network, but which do not have their own DC. Active Directory Sites can be created for locations that do not have (and never will have) a DC. An automatic process causes each DC to advertise itself (through SRV records) in any Site that does not have a DC and for which its Site has the lowest cost connections. Through this process, a client will automatically find the most appropriate DC. The alternative to defining sites for each physical location would be to configure the Sites covering the physical locations that have DCs to include the subnets of the other physical locations that do not. Although it might involve more initial work, I prefer the first option as it is more in-line with the concept of a Site being a collection of subnets that have high-speed connections. The second option potentially includes subnets in Sites that are not well connected. Any thoughts on which way to go? Pros and cons? Have a good weekend. Tony 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/ ___________________________________________________________________________ This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of SchlumbergerSema. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the SchlumbergerSema Helpdesk by telephone on +44 (0) 121 627 5600. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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/
