That's only true in multiple domain envrionments where not all DCs are GC's.
In single domain envrionments, there is no harm in the Infrastructure master being a GC. -------------------------------------------------------------- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 6:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] AD Design Guidance > > > If you have more than one DC, the GC should not be on the > same server as the Infrastructure Master. This can cause > replication problems. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Friese, Casey > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 3:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] AD Design Guidance > > > Chuck, > > Both sites are subnetted uniquely: > Site A being 10.64.x.x - 255.255.0.0 > Site B bring 10.128.x.x - 255.255.0.0 > > As far as as I know the FSMO role ilies solely with the > server in Office A Office A, the HQ, is of course a GC and > there is one in Office B where our Datacenter is > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 2:51 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] AD Design Guidance > > > Also, > Do you have your Sites and Subnets setup correctly? > How are your FSMO Roles divided? > Where are your GC's? > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Friese, Casey > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 2:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [ActiveDir] AD Design Guidance > > > I have uncovered what I believe is a problem with our Active > Directory design. I'm looking for assurance that it is > indeed a problem judging from the symptoms that I am seeing > and I'm also looking for recommendations on how to correct it. > > I've walked into the company just weeks after a consultant > started implementing the AD design. Now, 8 months later and > 10 servers later I believe that the design is flawed. Here > are my symptoms: > > Any administration activity done on the servers such as > setting permissions/re-writing permissions, opening property > sheets within Exchange System Manager, Viewing properties > sheets of OU objects/group policies, etc. All of these tasks > take a long period of time to complete or display. > > >From the client end we see hanging connections - one moment > a share is > >available, the next permission is denied or the connection can't be > >made. Opening files from the network sluggish and at times dhcp > >settings are lost. > > We have 2 offices: > Our HQ is in office A > Our Datacenter is in office B > > Office A has 1 Windows 2000 Server and was the first server > built in the Forest. This server is doing File/Print, DHCP, > WINS, DNS for it's location among doing it's specialized > tasks for the domain. > > Office B has 9 Windows 2000 Servers - among those 9 is a DC, > 1 is an E2K server and 1 is an ISA server. The DC provides > file/print, DHCP, WINS, DNS for it's location. The E2K > server is the mail server for both locations and the ISA > server is the Firewall for both locations. > > Office A is connected to Office B via 256kbps Split T1 used > for both voice and data. Office B is connected to the > internet via full T1 which is responsible for handling all > internet requests. > > Both sites, office A and B, belong to the same parent domain > - company.com with each client's dns set as clientname.company.com > > First questions: Are there any flaws with the above design? > The most noticeable thing to me is that Office A and B > communicate of a 256kbps shared line. I'm not an expert with > AD, in fact, It's new to me but from what I understand > anything done in Office B has to go to the Head Server in > Office A. These is where I believe my problems lie. > > What I would like to do is break these two sites apart and > have officeA.company.com and officeB.company.com - I think > this is the correct approach but I'm not sure. My main > concern is our Exchange 2000 Server and out ISA server > because they're both linked heavily into the AD so totally > redoing the design is a bit tough. Alternatively, I have > started entertaining the idea of moving the server in Office > A to the Office B location making Office B the root domain > and any new sites child domains. > > I apologize for the length and if I've confused anyone - I'm > confused myself. I just want to know if I'm blaming the > symptoms on the right thing and how I should proceed. > > Thanks, > Casey > 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/
