Dear all, thanks all for your positive views on this issue. first up i apologise for not chiming in the last week - been away at customer site ! - esp given it was me that opened up the item.
my further research into this seems to indicate that GC discovery process seems to vary across versions of Outlook - and specfically Outlook 2003 seems to introduce new processes ?? Would Ken be happy to confirm his version of Outlook - and required reg mods to support local GC discovery with centralised Exchange servers ? - I think i have referenced the "closestGC" reg value but am not sure if this is it TIA GT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mulnick, Al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:25 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] outlook / gc client discovery > Ken, that is a great response. Thanks for taking the time. > > I can see your logic now. :) > > Al > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 3:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] outlook / gc client discovery > > Well, as you (and Joe) pointed out, a WAN link slow enough to give a bad > user experience with name resolution will also yield poor message > performance. > > Obviously, the best solution is to put an Exchange server at the location. > Unfortunately, many of our smaller locations are simply unwilling to foot > the bill for an Exchange server (and associated trappings). > > So, we are left with the task of making things better for the users without > spending money. The only thing we can do for free is to make their DC a GC. > This speeds up name resolution. We can't speed up messaging performance, so > we simply coach the effected users to not send large attachments, and tell > others to not send them large attachments. > We also show users how to use Outlook in off-line mode. We were hoping that > OL2003's cached mode would help, but it seems to add as many problems as it > fixes (more experimentation is in the works...). > > Like most other things, it is a trade-off. Our AD is fairly static - just > adding/deleting users here and there, group membership changed now and > again. We looked at the GC replication traffic, and decided that it didn't > look like a problem. > > This seems to work well for us, but obviously everyone's mileage may vary. I > can easily see how GC replication would be a problem for large > organizations' WANs. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 1:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] outlook / gc client discovery > > > Aside from cached mode, I think it's valuable to ask this: Is it ok then to > have the user experience bad performance when it comes to message content as > long as GAL resolution is good??? > > The point I was trying to get across is that if the link is good enough to > host the Exchange data, it follows that it's also good enough to host the > GAL resolution. The thinking being that the resolution of names takes far > fewer packets to traverse the wire than it does to open a message body. > Obviously there are exceptions when it comes to user experience, and as Tony > says, cached mode might be an option to "shield" > the user from noticing the crappy latency issues. But cached mode aside, I > would expect user experience to suck overall if the GAL functions were bad > enough for the user to notice. The only difference across that link is the > host they talk to assuming no DSProxy in play. > > I'd be interested to hear about the experience and how you solved it, Ken, > as I've never seen it go that way with regularity. I have seen the odd time > when your situation was true, but it turned out to be a slow GC anyway and > that experience was much less dangerous than the Active Directory latency > issues Joe pointed out. Slow data is always better than inaccurate data > IMHO. > > Al > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Murray > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 10:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] outlook / gc client discovery > > This is where Outlook 2003 in cached mode helps. By default it will always > use the OAB. > > Tony > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: "Ken Cornetet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:41:11 -0500 > > Ouch, I hate to disagree with Joe, but we've "been there, done that". > While it's true that the GC traffic volume pales in comparison to the > Exchange traffic, the important metric here is not the bandwidth usage, but > rather the end user experience. Your users will notice very pokey name > resolution and GAL lookups if they are hitting a GC across a WAN. A > T1 isn't bad, but a 128K link with moderately bad latency is absolutely > painful! > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 4:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] outlook / gc client discovery > > > I like to put this most simply as.... > > Use the GCs for the clients that the Exchange Servers are using. If you have > an Exchange Server in your local site using a local GC, use that GC, would > be silly to go across the WAN. However if your Exchange Server is across the > WAN, use the GC across the WAN as well. Comparatively the traffic is nothing > compared to Exchange AND you are less likely to be bitten by the "loosely > consistent" nature of Active Directory. > > joe > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:46 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] outlook / gc client discovery > > Sponsorship? I have no idea what you mean <g> > > "point taken about the size of the address book being small compared to but > my mind has been that we have servers there with the required directory > information, we might as well use them ???" > > Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. They are two totally > different concepts to say the least. The address book lookups is typically > very small. Although I currently enjoy large network links, that has not > been the norm during my career. I've made similar recommendations when > using 9.6 Kbps links, although that would arguably be a case for considering > putting in a local Exchange server else use avian packet carrier or cached > mode to at least give the illusion of usable performance. > Generally speaking, wherever you put a site, you may also want to consider > putting an Exchange server and GC's. They're not that different. If you > instead decide to put the Exchange mailstores, where all the user data is > located, in a central location, then why would it make sense to put the GC > in a decentralized location? It's a nice to have, but it's not a > requirement in most situations. It becomes more of a requirement depending > on the links, but if you need to rely on it, you either have a > geographically dispersed network and want more finite control over user > traffic patterns (i.e. don't want the french mailbox users to have to use > the south american GC for address book lookups)else you have a penchant for > zeroing in on unimportant things. I'll assume the previous in your case > because that would make a lot more sense. > > Bottom line is that there is no reason you wouldn't want to create a 5.5 > - like topology if centralizing. You would create an active directory site, > put in as many GC's as you needed for Exchange servers/users, and for each > of those machines you'd hardcode the GC's DSProxy can hand out. > Or maybe even create your own Exchange domain without users or your own > domain forest depending on requirements. But to spend the time to reduce > the smallest amount of traffic seems counterproductive to me except in > situations noted above. > > My thoughts anyway. > > Al > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 1:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] outlook / gc client discovery > > thanks both for post replies - helpful in the extreme > > i do sense that the issue of GC and by implication dlist etc retrieval over > a WAN connection is not regarded as such as a major issue - can only assume > that you have the luxury of very well connected sites ?? > > point taken about the size of the address book being small compared to but > my mind has been that we have servers there with the required directory > information, we might as well use them ??? > > i take point about risk about client not being "intelligent" in its choice > of GC with respect to domainprep etc - suppose this is where Dsaccess has a > bit more intelligence than the client based discovery process - which it > seems we are not sure about > > will be doing some capturing of the startup of outlook clients so hopefully > something will stick out here > > thanks again for your help > > i always wonder about the sponsorship owed by microsoft to this mailing list > ?? > > GT > > - > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mulnick, Al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 5:36 PM > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] outlook / gc client discovery > > > > Graham, that's a fairly common question actually, although usually in > > the Exchange groups. It still could be considered on topic here for > > part of that data. > > > > FWIW, it's the dsproxy process that hands out GC's to clients to use. > That's > > because of the legacy restrictions the client brings to the equation > > (see: > > > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/2000/deploy/upgrad > emig > > rate/series/planningguide/p_08_tt1.mspx and search for DSProxy)Note > > that different versions of Outlook will respond differently to this > > process > after > > the first contact is made an a GC is found. DSProxy picks it's GC's > > based on a number of criteria such as whether or not the domain it's > > talking to > is > > domainprepped, how close to the Exchange machine the GC is (network), > > etc. > > > > > > In multi-domain environments, it's not always a good idea to use the > > closestGC method (see: > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q319206). > > Rather, using a pre-defined becomes more usable as long as that GC > > remains operational and up to date. Since that's against what Active > > Directory > can > > do (multi-master concept) then it becomes a burden that many will > > gripe about (and rightfully so on that one). For those situations, > > recreating Exchange 5.5 with Exchange 2003/Active Directory seems to > > be the best > > workaround: i.e. creating a set of GC's specifically for Exchange > usage. > > This has the added benefit of dedicating GC's to Exchange (better > > performance) and putting it under Exchange operational control > > (environmentally isolated). Some would call that a detriment others a > great > > step forward, but all can agree it's just about a waste of hardware :) > > > > The problem is that the client doesn't send any site-awareness > information. > > Since Exchange 2003 can't take us back in time while still having to > support > > legacy clients (else many wouldn't buy the upgrade right?), you need > > to > work > > with it to your environmental strengths IMHO. > > > > Why does it only maintain 10 of each? How many does it need? If 10 > aren't > > available, don't you have bigger problems to worry about? The q > > article discusses your second question and gives details about the > > behavior. Like > I > > said, be careful to note the versions and if you're spread out over > > many sites with a centralized Exchange server, consider the recreation > > > of Exchange 5.5 functionality with regards to directory service. > > > > Al > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner > > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 8:10 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [ActiveDir] outlook / gc client discovery > > > > dear all, am a bit nervous posting this on account of going way OT as > > this post falls quite definitely under Outlook 2002 configuration, but > > > there is obviously relation to AD so here goes ... > > > > understanding the mechanisms of GC 'discovery' would it seem be very > > important to optimal deployment of outlook / exchange especially in > > remote office scenarios. > > > > the default outlook configuration seems to use the "view" of the AD > topology > > in terms of DC's and GC's as is learnt by DSACCESS - and reads this > > from > the > > server on which the outlook client is homed > > > > qu 1. why does it only maintain 10 of each ??? - this is a bit like > > that > odd > > limitation of 25 DC addresses in the WINS (1C) record - and which 10 > > does > it > > learn ??? > > > > qu 2 seems we can override this default behaviour with a registry > > value (closest GC) - does this reconfigure outlook to behave like the > > logon > server > > discovery process and use native DNS lookups ??? > > > > hope the mail list can be of help on this one > > > > GT > > > > > > 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/ > > 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/ > > > > 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/ > 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/ > > 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/ > > 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/ > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Sent via the WebMail system at mail.activedir.org > > > > > 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/ > 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/ > > 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/ > 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/ > 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/
