No sweat....I apologize for my comments as well.
-----Original Message-----
Coffee? How did you know? My reputation preceded me again :)
In any case, I went back and read my original post. Flippant? maybe. Snotty, definitely not. As to Gil taking umbrage at it... I still don't get it.
Make that double espresso, please. No milk.
Sincerely,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on behalf of Rogers, Brian Woahhhhhhhh was my comment about my completely missing something obviously very pertinent to my discussion here.
As in "holy crap" or "Damn where did that come from" or "Wow...I completely missed that"
Incredulous? Lol....you need to lay off the coffee J
-----Original Message-----
I guess it's my time to say "Woahhhhh...."
Gil, my response was not in any way directed at you. It was directed at Brian and, if anything, it was an attempt at levity, not snottiness. So, where did the slam come from?
I'd think that if anything is snotty, it would be Brian's increduluos "Woahhhhh....", not mine. Don't you think?
As for "Site coverage" in Win2K being equal to GC-Less config in Win2K3, I firmly believe they are apple and orange. They are both fruits, but not the same.
Sincerely,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on behalf of Gil Kirkpatrick I may have missed something, but the snotty tone seems inappropriate...
In any case, to reduce the apparent confusion:
GC-less sites have always been possible with AD since W2K. The facility is called site coverage.
GC-less logon is new in WS2K3 and occurs because DCs can cache group memberships. This allows the DC to assemble a complete token even if a GC isn't available. This functionality has nothing to do with application partitions.
Application partitions are a mechanism where you can host replicas of specific subtrees in the domain on any set of DCs in the forest. The subtrees may not contain security principals such as users, groups, and computers, When you create a zone in WS2K3, you can elect to configure it as an application partition and replicate the data to specific DCs in the forest.
-gil
-----Original
Message-----
|
Title: Message
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) Gil Kirkpatrick
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) Gil Kirkpatrick
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) Rogers, Brian
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) Rogers, Brian
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) deji
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) Rogers, Brian
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) deji
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) Gil Kirkpatrick
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) Gil Kirkpatrick
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) Rogers, Brian
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) Rogers, Brian
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) deji
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) Roger Seielstad
- RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD integrated DNS question :) Ruston, Neil