Rick,

Good new, indeed.  Interesting though, as I posed this issue/question to
Stuart at Devcon in early September and found his answer to be somewhat
evasive.  I believe, though, that this was due to the fact that I didn't
really have the necessary time with him to go over our situation in detail.
I could understand a hesitation to commit to an answer until all facts are
known.  However, we're working with Microsoft folks locally here, who know
our environment well, and I've posed the question to them, and received
similar hesitation.

No problem on .Net functional mode.  We were planning on that anyway due to
14,000 users and the group member limitations in AD v1.  In fact, our user
base and our timetable for deployment were what made .Net the logical
choice.  We're running RC1 in .Net functional mode on our lab servers now
but, of course, are unable to fully mimic our production environment well
enough to have a good feel for the KCC's capabilities.

We'll move forward with more confidence now but are also confident, but
less willing, to script this if necessary.


Thanks,
Mike


"Rick Kingslan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@mail.activedir.org on 09/25/2002
05:39:19 PM

Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent by:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]


To:    <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:

Subject:    RE: [ActiveDir] .Net Server KCC intersite replication


Mike,

I wish that I could go into detail on this (NDA issues), but suffice it
to say that an intimate conversation (15 people with Stuart Kwan and
Andreas Luther) at the Microsoft Campus convinced me that they got it
right in .Net.  The issue is a mathematical one, and (believe it or not)
MS employs their own Mathematical 'think tank'.  Stuart presented a very
complex issue related to the KCC to their math folks and asked them if
it could be done.  Well, they did it and it seems in testing and early
deployment, the KCC speed and scope are increased by magnitudes.

Now, nothing comes without a price.  IIRC, you WILL NOT get any of these
benefits until you switch the Domain to .Net functional mode.  Yes - you
did read that right.  We now have three modes to worry about.  Mixed (no
change), Native (no change) and .Net (Windows .Net DC's only).

I hope this, at least, leads you to the right questions to ask.

Good luck!

Rick Kingslan - Microsoft MVP [Windows NT/2000]
  Microsoft Certified Trainer
  MCSA, MCSE+I - Windows NT / 2000

"Any sufficiently advanced technology
is indistinguishable from magic."
  ---  Arthur C. Clarke





> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Baudino
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 1:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [ActiveDir] .Net Server KCC intersite replication
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Anybody out there who's an early adopter of .Net with more
> than 100 sites?
>
> We've got more than 100 sites and are moving towards an AD
> migration next year.  We've decided, at Microsoft's
> recommendation, to go straight to .Net and it's version of
> AD.  I've read that the KCC can handle the number of sites
> that we have with relative ease.  But I'm still concerned.
>
> We have a hub-and-spoke WAN environment with a single hub and
> slightly more than 100 field offices, each of which will be
> considered a site.  We'll have four DC's in the hubsite.  We
> wish to not have to script the creation of the connection
> objects and would rather have the KCC do this.  However, I'm
> concerned about whether the KCC will make efficient use of
> the number of DC's in the hubsite by making them all, or as
> many as it needs, bridgehead servers automatically.
>
> It would seem to me that this would work properly, based on
> Microsoft's statement that they'll handle many more sites.
> I've heard 2000 and 5000 sites stated at different times.
> But how does it do this and will it do what we need?
>
>
> Any experiences out there yet?  Any thoughts?  The beta site
> just doesn't have specific enough information on it yet.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Baudino
>
>
>
> ******************* PLEASE NOTE *******************
> This E-Mail/telefax message and any documents accompanying
> this transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential
> information and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named
> above.  If you are not the intended addressee/recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any use of, disclosure, copying,
> distribution, or reliance on the contents of this
> E-Mail/telefax information is strictly prohibited and may
> result in legal action against you. Please reply to the
> sender advising of the error in transmission and immediately
> delete/destroy the message and any accompanying documents.  Thank you.
>
>
> 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/

Reply via email to