|
> I was overruled by an MS
consultant and his buddy, who said
> you never need or want to define sites where
you don’t have DCs.
> Actually that was 2 MS
consultants, but to be fair this was in 2001
> and maybe site design
tended to a different philosophy at MS than it does
now?
Not all MCS guys/gals are created equal. For the most
part MS seems to be trying to make them generalists. I know the person who is
allegedly the best AD guy for MCS in the Central region and I tend to
answer more questions for him than ask of him and he is more specialist than the
rest of the MCS guys.
Anything that MCS (and for that matter PSS)
says should be considered suggestions and then you go from there and figure
out if it is good or bad or what. Actually that goes for any consultant walking
in the door to offer advice. No one will know your environment and goals as well
as you will. That goes for everyhing too, not just AD or Microsoft stuff or
whatever. Outside people should never be able to overrule local people. There
should be some form of agreement from the person stuck there supporting whatever
is designed. Of course the weight of making good decisions starts to fall down
onto the local person then. They need to have a clue about what they are talking
about and an open mind as to better ways to do things.
joe
Yeah – I’ve had
situations where 10 people were at a site with AutoCAD and we needed to put a
file/print server out there for the 50MB file issue, and we put a DC since it
was a demand-dial ISDN that tended to go down. We were going to a forced
scenario with a single server farm regardless of WAN connections, mandated
relocation of servers (by management types) and some of these sites had 800
people across a 2MB connection. This was my first situation where AD sites
became an issue – there were to be no (0) servers at these remote sites, and
while I thought it was cleaner to make each physical WAN-connected enclave its
own AD site (partly because I knew the no-outlying-servers mandate would be
short-lived), I was overruled by an MS consultant and his buddy, who said you
never need or want to define
sites where you don’t have DCs. Actually that was 2 MS consultants, but to
be fair this was in 2001 and maybe site design tended to a different philosophy
at MS than it does now? We would have had a couple of hundred sites
instead of 16 if we had defined each enclave as a site, but I left before they
actually started building the design so I have no idea how it played out. Anyway
I digress. J
Rich
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Roger
Seielstad
Sent: Thursday,
February 19, 2004 9:32 AM
To:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Site
Configurations and SMS2003
Actually, my site
design philosophy is a bit like this:
All locations with
permanent WAN connections get local File, Print and DHCP. Generally my break
even point for a local DC is 35-50 people, depending on what they actually do in
that site (like 50 sales people or 35 software
engineers).
File and print can be
dog slow across a WAN, especially when they print 50MB PDF's - remember that if
your print server is across the WAN, you're pushing that data across twice, not
once.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger D. Seielstad -
MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems
Administrator
Inovis
Inc.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Rich
Milburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:30
AM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Site
Configurations and SMS2003
I have to apologize,
I oversimplified things... in AD with its current implementation, if there's
no domain controller in a site, there's no replication to that site
(right??). And I've generally gone by the principle that if you need
resource servers in a site then you want a DC there too... so if there's no
DC, there's no file server, i.e. info left out of my statement. In SMS
you can use SMS sites to control how clients download their packages, and now
you're talking client-server instead of server-server use of sites.
Sorry for leaving the impression AD sites only dealt with replication...
J
Rich
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Roger
Seielstad
Sent: Thursday,
February 19, 2004 8:01 AM
To:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Site
Configurations and SMS2003
But oh my friend,
sites are used for more than just replication. They're used for controlling a
lot of AD integrated configurations. For instance, DFS trees use AD Sites to
find the "local" replica, they're used for controlling where the clients
authenticate, etc.
Roger--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger D. Seielstad -
MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems
Administrator
Inovis
Inc.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Rich
Milburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004
12:39 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Site
Configurations and SMS2003
I've heard the same
thing - with AD it
doesn't make any sense to have a site that doesn't have a DC in
it - sites are used
for replication and if there's nothing to replicate to in a site
then why would you
create an AD site? But with SMS, you can define SMS Site
Boundaries and Roaming
Boundaries with
either subnets or
AD Sites... guess which is easier
to do for the SMS admin? So if the AD admins create a site for
every area you'll have a
DP in, then it makes it easy to set up boundaries. That
is, it's easy if
you trust that they are putting the right subnets in the right
AD
sites, and you get
the right AD sites in the right SMS assignment
boxes and spell
them correctly. Barring all that, you could just add the subnets in
the appropriate places in SMS and ignore the AD sites.
Rich
_____________________________________________
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of John McGlinchey
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004
10:49 AM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Site
Configurations and SMS2003
Sites are a
collection of "Well Connected" subnets. That said, one persons
definition of "well connected" can be completely different from another's.
It really depends upon the bandwidth and network utilization between
locations on your network. On some site designs I've set every
location to be a site no matter what the bandwidth while on others I have
groups locations together into a single site where bandwidth was "good
enough" and the load put onto the network was deemed to be minimal.
So, the answer is, it depends! I would think that adding SMS
would make you rethink how you have grouped your sites to optimize the use
of the SMS distribution points. Too many users hitting the
distribution points will put a significant load on the location to location
links and that would move you towards defining a location to be in a
separate site.
Just my $.02.
Coming out of lurking mode. Great list. Thanks for being
here.
John McGlinchey,
MCSA, MCSE, CCNA
Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company
_____________________________________________
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of Ayers, Diane
Sent:
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
11:18 AM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
[ActiveDir] Site
Configurations and SMS2003
All:
I know that this is
somewhat off topic (SMS) but I had a recent conversation with some folks in
regards to AD and SMS 2003. We are looking at possibly deploying SMS 2003
and looking at some deployment scenarios. Anyway the conversation turn
to the AD sites and what is the best configuration for sites in an
organization.
Briefly we have a
highly connected backbone with DCs spread around key nodes on this backbone
to support the geographical locations spurred off of this backbone. We
developed our AD sites around these nodes (5 geo locations, 5 AD sites) with
all the "downstream" geographic locations for each DC being rolled into the
site.
It was recommend that
we make each geographic location that are rolled up to the main sites we
have now a separate site in AD irregardless if this geographic location has
DC or not. Site connectors would be built between those sites
that have DCs and for those sites that don't have DCs, we'd have to go in
and hack the _kerberos._tcp.<site
name>._sites and
the _ldap._tcp.<site
name>._sites SRV records so
that they would refer to the correct DC.
I'm still trying to
grasp the nuances of sites in AD but this seemed to be an usual approach to
sites in AD. Granted that SMS 2003 does bring some twists to the
picture as a client will need to identify a distribution point from it's AD
site. We have over 200 individual geographic sites with approx 180
software distribution boxes that we'd make distribution points. That
would translate to 180 AD sites (sites mapped to distribution points).
My basic understanding of sites is that the should be built around
DCs.
This is
a simply summary of what was discussed but I was wondering if
there was some
opinions one way or another over the best way to approach sites in AD.
Obviously each case is different but wanted to capture folks
thoughts.
Diane
-------APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL,
INC. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE------- PRIVILEGED / CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION may be contained in this message or any attachments. This
information is strictly confidential and may be subject to attorney-client
privilege. This message is intended only for the use of the named addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message, unauthorized
forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or using such information is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this in error,
you should kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately destroy
this message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of
federal criminal law. Applebee's International, Inc. reserves the right to
monitor and review the content of all messages sent to and from this e-mail
address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the
Applebee's International, Inc. e-mail system.
-------APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL,
INC. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE------- PRIVILEGED / CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may
be contained in this message or any attachments. This information is strictly
confidential and may be subject to attorney-client privilege. This message is
intended only for the use of the named addressee. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying,
distribution, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this in error, you should kindly notify the
sender by reply e-mail and immediately destroy this message. Unauthorized
interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. Applebee's
International, Inc. reserves the right to monitor and review the content of
all messages sent to and from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from
this e-mail address may be stored on the Applebee's International, Inc. e-mail
system.
-------APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE------- PRIVILEGED / CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may be contained in this
message or any attachments. This information is strictly confidential and may be
subject to attorney-client privilege. This message is intended only for the use
of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or using such
information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received
this in error, you should kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail and
immediately destroy this message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a
violation of federal criminal law. Applebee's International, Inc. reserves the
right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to and from this
e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on
the Applebee's International, Inc. e-mail system.
|
