RE: [ActiveDir] Seeking some feedback ... use of 2003 Admin. tool s against a non-forest prep'd 2000 only directory ...

[Joe]

Title: Message

OT but....   > So the question is, are you that good!   Dean is really really really really good. Not a fortune teller, but if it is all based on technology, he is the man.     joe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Myrick, Todd (NIH/CIT) Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:57 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Seeking some feedback ... use of 2003 Admin. tool s against a non-forest prep'd 2000 only directory ... Schema Extensions aren't bad, if they are documented correctly and properly replicated throughout the forest.  Rob, didn't you say that you found a way to clean up old schema extensions that Microsoft "fixed" in SP3.   Dean,   Why is it necessary for you to extend the native tool function?  If it is to have better Data Administration functions, I would recommend using a third-party products.  I personally think investing time and money into the native tools for data administers is like giving children razor blades.  Directory Administrators on the other hand can use tools like Hyena, or one of the many tools out there, but you are right, to get extended functions, the only way is to either forest prep using Microsoft regression tested methods, or roll you own.    So the question is, are you that good! This isn't to say can you write a script to do it, more so, can you predict how long their directory will be used, and if your extensions will one day cause more problems than its worth to the next guy who supports them.  I have to say you do have a very impressive Microsoft knowledge base in your brain, and intellectual grasps of the cause and effect of changes in Microsoft Technology, so I am not really worried.  Just trying the scare off the faint of heart.   From what you describe though, it doesn't sound to difficult and I have modified display specifies many of times.  (Who in the heck searches an address book by first name?  The guy who wrote AD U&C must have had some good drugs that day.)     -----Original Message----- From: Robbie Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:07 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Seeking some feedback ... use of 2003 Admin. tool s against a non-forest prep'd 2000 only directory ... Based on some things I've done in the past that are similar in nature to this, I would be extremely surprised if MS supports it.  That said, it didn't prevent me from doing it anyway ;-)   I'd like to see the script when you are done to look at what is involved.  You'll definitely want to put add an "undo" option as part of it.  As you mentioned, the schema version would be the major concern.  Who knows how Microsoft uses it within applications.  I suppose other non-MS apps could also use it to determine what to expect in the schema.   As far as extending the schema goes, you will inevitably run into the people that don't want to do it because it is "bad", and probably even more so if it isn't supported by MS.  I'm a big proponent of extending the schema when it makes sense.  Especially in this case, you aren't adding to the GC (which of course isn't an issue in W2K3).  It all comes down to how much the customer needs the new tools and is not wanting to upgrade.   Robbie Allen http://www.rallenhome.com/   -----Original Message----- From: Dean Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:12 PM To: AD mailing list (send) Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Seeking some feedback ... use of 2003 Admin. tools against a non-forest prep'd 2000 only directory ... In order for the multi-select property sheets to become available within the admin. tools, a display specifier modification is necessary. The modification entails the usage of an attribute NOT provided by the base Windows 2000 AD schema, subsequently, some minor directory updates are necessary if batch modification is desirable within the GUI (in my experience, it's listed as the one of the major complaints especially from those that upgraded from NT4).   The mods. necessary are quite extensive and involve incrementing the schema revision (objectVersion attribute of the schema NC head) to a value of 15 (this step is mandatory as the tools appear to be hard coded to look for this value before presenting the properties context menu option during a multi-select operation).   With the exception of the schema revision and a modification to two of the pre-existing display specifiers, no further potentially destructive changes are necessary (the schema revision is the major concern).   As for supportability from MS themselves, I agree this is important to many but since we're introducing changes defined by Microsoft themselves (admittedly incomplete) I see no reason for major technical concern. I'm uncertain as to PSS's point of view at this stage (without wishing to raise the "ooh, look at me flag", I'm fortunate enough to have the luxury of teaching the majority of Microsoft's worldwide AD PSS tech. leads & support staff and will ask for their opinion next week). I guess I look it these modifications as similar to those you referenced in your reply, they are little more than "run of the mill" schema extensions that happen to be defined and used by MS themselves ... one would hope this is a positive thing :) .   Thanks for your input Glenn ... much appreciated.   Dean -- Dean Wells MSEtechnology ( Tel: +1 (954) 501-4307 * Email: dwells@msetechnology.com http://msetechnology.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 11:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Seeking some feedback ... use of 2003 Admin. tools against a non-forest prep'd 2000 only directory ... Dean,   I'm not quite sure I understand the question (it may have something to do with it being 1am here)   Running the 2k3 Admin tools on 2000 / XP machines wont require any mods to the forest schema (and in fact is the only way you can perform some administrative tasks from XP machines (like e2k) - grrrrr Microsoft).   That being said, it sounds like you are performing a selective update of the schema with those properties / objects to give some additional 2003 'ish features without going all they way and really 2k3'ing the environment ? Are they simply additional properties to existing objects (like users, groups, computers), or it it something more fundamental ?   Sounds like a feasible alternative, provided that you arent changing underlying properties within objects that may affect downlevel 2000 clients or DC's (which it sounds like you arent).  Personally, I dont think MS would support you in the slightest if you did have issues in the 2k environment, and would be tricky to undo as you cant reverse schema mods in 2k. The only option would be a 'forced' rollup to 2k3 before the client environment is ready for it.   What sort of additional functionality are you gaining, and is this enough to potentially have an "unsupported" AD in the eyes of MS ? (I'm not saying for certain they wouldnt support you, but from personal experience its probable).   My suggestion would be to get a definate yes or no from MS on the supportability of this change, and if they are happy make your decision then.  The schema isnt written in stone obviously, so is meant to be changed (within reason), your just modding it in a slightly *strange* way.   I would certainly be interested in the details of what changes you are making, and what additional functionality you are getting.  My understanding with things like Multiple Object Edit is that it is simply additional functionality within the 2k3 Admin tools, and had nothing really to do with AD.   As to schema mods, I've certainly made several changes to each schema for directories I've designed to incorporate additional properties for objects, but havent tried anything like your doing.   Glenn   ----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Wells To: AD mailing list (send) Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: [ActiveDir] Seeking some feedback ... use of 2003 Admin. tools against a non-forest prep'd 2000 only directory ... I'm seeking some feedback regarding the use of the new 2003 admin. tools against a Windows 2000 only directory. I implemented these tools many moons ago on an internal, production 2000 forest on both XP and Server 2003 clients and have experienced no significant (insurmountable) issues. Coincidentally enough, I recently offered this as an alternative *potential* solution in the public newsgroups for those administering 2000 directories who wish to take advantage of the newer features such as "Saved queries" and "Multiple object edit" (to name but a few) ... quite honestly, that's the main reason for soliciting your feedback.   I'm considering automating the necessary directory modifications such that those customers (specifically, one of mine) wishing to use the new features provided by the uplevel ADMINPAK are able to do so without going through the convoluted steps necessary to enable certain components and gaining these features without fully forest prepping their existing directory (NOTE - doing so is, IMHO, a satisfactory approach but I'm certain that the myth of "Extending a Windows 2000 schema is a bad, bad thing" is likely to raise its head ... thus the reasoning behind making ONLY the necessary directory modifications).   What I'm looking for are opinions/technical commentary or actual experience of doing so in production or test environments other than my own.   I've exhaustively tested this including proceeding with a full Windows 2003 forest prep in order to ensure that the modifications made to the base 2000 schema were NOT prohibitive to a future 2003 upgrade ... they weren't (this did require some minor modifications prior to executing the forest prep though).   Thanks in advance for your thoughts and/or experiences.   Dean   -- Dean Wells MSEtechnology * Email: dwells@msetechnology.com http://msetechnology.com