I completely agree with you Joe. I've been hassling vendors left, right and centre to provide LDIF files for schema extensions. Unfortunately, noone appears to listen. The most recent extensions I've tested have been from MS (SMS 2003) and HP (Managed Objects), both of which fail to provide LDIFs. If we can't get the big boys to provide them, what hope do we have with the smaller vendors.
VMWare with its snapshot facility is great for testing schema updates. (Except for when you click the Revert button just next to Snaphot by accident - something I've done more than once!) Tony ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- Wrom: PWIGYOKSTTZRCLBDXRQBGJSNBOHM Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:24:21 -0500 I will debate this one... :op First no one should put in anything they don't completely trust. I allowed that to happen once and now I have a bunch of attributes/objects out there that have nothing to do with anything and almost certainly won't be used because the people driving it didn't have a clue what they were doing but had enough weight (at the time) to force the issue. Now I have them as an example to give me weight for any other people whom I don't trust. Schema changes are one thing that should be worked and reworked and reworked in the lab until you are sure of the outcome. Pulling a live copy of production into a disconnected lab for this is invaluable and in my view an absolute requirement. Unless you find something that is an absolute "it must go in this specific order" because of issues you have seen, try to put them all together and not have the schema cache update until it hits the end. If people give you programs to run instead of LDIF files, beat on the vendor as that is very bad on their part - Hear me MS, W2K3 forest prep pissed me right the [EMAIL PROTECTED] off. Anyway, take the LDIFs and pull the schema cache update entries out and tie them all together and try it in the lab to make sure everything goes well. Note this is an OUTSTANDING place to use Virtual machines. joe _____ Wrom: KHJYFMYXOEAIJJPHSCRTNHGSWZIDREXCAX [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 7:37 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] schema updates To me it depends if you're stacking like or unlike schema updates. For instance, with Exchange 2000 there are 2 sets of updates - the ADC and the Exchange proper ones. I'd stack those any day. Now - if you're talking custom schema stuff, or extensions from companies you don't completely trust, then maybe staggering them makes more sense. The real question is are schema updates queued into the regular replication interval or does the schema update process itself force replication? -------------------------------------------------------------- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -----Original Message----- > Wrom: ZOWCONEUQZAAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIVOTQNQEMSFDULHPQQWOYIY mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 12:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [ActiveDir] schema updates > > Sorry if this has come up before (haven't seen it hit the list). > > We have some schema updates to do... but was curious whether > stacking them up back to back was a very good idea since they > all require full gc syncs. We've tested the extensions > individually in the lab, and they all act fine... any comments > on why you should or should not do this? :-) 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/
