Diane - we've done the same, for the same reasons...we wanted sites mainly so that workstations would find their local DC, but we wanted replication as quickly as possible through the network. We have a global, single domain, hub-n-spoke, centrally managed AD environment. We've had change notification on every site link since day 1 (coming up on 3 years now). The only problem we've had was when one of the admins brought up a new site & skipped that step of the procedure when he created the site link...after some complaint of 'why is replication to downtown Tokyo taking 3 hours ?', we found and corrected that oversight and all was well.
Yeah, you don't get the benefits of replication schedules and compressing all those queued-up changes, but if the bandwidth is sufficient for the volume of changes it works well. Now, if I could only get everyone to play together so every subnet gets properly created and assigned to the right site, I'd be a happy man...that, of course, is the price you pay in order to get the 'localizing' benefits of sites. Happy Tuesday! Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Diane Ayers > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 8:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Inter-site Urgent replication > > The biggest concern is not really the replication traffic and wanting > to throttle the traffic but trying to localize the authentication. > I've turned on change notifications and we'll see how this works. > Thanks for the refresher on urgent replication and good point on the > bridge head traffic. > > Diane > > _____________________________________________ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 5:41 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Inter-site Urgent replication > > Urgent replication really isn't... It is urgent queuing of a > replication request in actuality or at least from what I have > observed. Basically you quickly stick a replication request into the > queue of all change notification partners. They process it in the > order and priority received... i.e. it would happen before a > previously queued GC partition replication but after a previously > queued domain partition replication. > > You would need to enable change notification between sites to start to > see the urgent queuing and doing that will blow out your replication > schedules and most all benefits of compression. > > HOWEVER, if you were happy with a single site setup, this all would be > fine for you... Note however all traffic will STILL go through the > bridgeheads. You won't set up a large ring like you had within a > single site. > > joe > > > _____________________________________________ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ayers, Diane > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 6:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Greetings > > In an effort to localize our authentication traffic, we recently > implemented a multi-site configuration moving away from our single > mega-site (single domain). All DCs are on high bandwidth links but we > are trying to reduce authentication across the WAN. All inter-site > transports are configured for a maximum replication frequency (15 > minutes). > > An assumption on my part (and probably erroneous) is that urgent > replication triggers such as account lockouts will still bypass > inter-site replication schedules and be replicated to all DCs in the > domain. We're getting a smattering of reports that the events such as > account lockouts are not getting replicated quickly. Putting 2 and 2 > together, it looks like urgent replication is not carried between > sites. Is my assumption correct and can I enabled urgent replication > between sites? > > Diane 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/
