That's the #1 performance issue I seen time and again.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Kingslan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 9:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] AD Design Guidance
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> Not as big of a long shot as you might imagine.  Shortly 
> after I joined the company I'm currently with, I was looking 
> at a performance problem similar to what Casey is describing 
> - but the performance was especially bad between servers.  My 
> boss (ex-consulting cohort) and I looked into this and found 
> exactly what you are describing.  We had to get together with 
> the Network guys and make sure that the ports on the Cisco 
> gear and the NIC/Drivers on the servers were set to 100/Full.
> 
> Amazing how many problems this will resolve - and how weird 
> and widespread the problems can be if it is misconfigured.
> 
> Rick Kingslan  MCSE, MCSA, MCT
> Microsoft MVP - Active Directory
> Associate Expert
> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> 
> 
> 
> >  
> >  
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> > Chuck Robinson
> > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 5:23 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > This is a "Long Shot":
> > Assuming you have an Ethernet Network - If you run Netmon do
> > you see a lot of CRC Errors?
> > I've seen a port speed or duplex mismatch cause really wacky 
> > network performance 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/
> 
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