Restore to dissimilar hardware is a HUGE pain point for us in reference to AD restores for DR drills (1). Take Joe's suggestion of removing the OS dependency from AD version and go one further where the backup and restore of AD is somewhat independent and not gloomed into system state. Not sure how you would do this without a major redesign of AD but fixing the dissimilar hardware restore problem would be a nice.... Things that may work would be to do something with an "true" export/import tool or fixing the Virtual Server / Vmware / SAN disk copy problem.
_Stuart Fuller (1)Sungard and other DR vendors have a mix of equipment and you may not get your specific version of the special Dell 2U server to recover to. Doing an actual restore from a Dell to a Compaq or IBM or vis-versa is a PIA and sometimes almost impossible without a lot of manual steps and fooling the OS to recognize the HAL or RAID driver. We have gone to VMWare ESX for some of our DC's so that we can get around the dissimilar hardware restore problem BUT since MS doesn't officially support AD on Vmware our pointy-haired boss types get nervous. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hunter, Laura E. Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes Everyone is making a number of suggestions/comments that hit home to me, so rather than chiming in with <AOL>Me too!</AOL>, I'll bring up the one that makes me crazy that no-one has mentioned yet: Restoring a domain controller to alternate hardware (think Disaster Recovery drill at a company like Sungard) should Not. Be. So. Friggin'. Hard. It's better in K3 than it was in 2K, but it's still way too much of a hothouse-flower-y delicate operation. (Maybe Longhorn's "AD as a service" will make this better. I can hope, at least, because right now it still sucks canal water.) - Laura > -----Original Message----- > From: Almeida Pinto, Jorge de > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:30 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > DFS-R is only supported for custom DFS namespaces. MS at the moment > does not support DFS-R for SYSVOL replication. MS states that in the > DFS-R overview document page 16 > > See: > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=5e547 > c69-d224-4423-8eac-18d5883e7bc2&DisplayLang=en > > QUOTE: > > DFS Replication is not supported for SYSVOL replication in Windows > Server 2003 R2. Do not attempt to configure DFS Replication on SYSVOL > by disabling FRS and setting up a replication group for SYSVOL. > Continue to use FRS for SYSVOL replication on domain controllers > running Windows Server 2003 R2. FRS and DFS Replication can co-exist > on the same member server or domain controller. > > > A shame, but true! DFS-R really rocks!!! It is way better than NTFRS! > > Cheers > #JORGE# > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Carlos Magalhaes > Sent: Tue 8/2/2005 11:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > > > * Using the new DFS-Replication mechanism in R2 for the SYSVOL > > This is available AFAIK if all your servers are running R2 :P > > Carlos Magalhaes > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Wells > Sent: 02 August 2005 09:59 PM > To: Send - AD mailing list > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > http://www.novell.com :o) > > Bloody NetWare bigot ... > > -- > Dean Wells > MSEtechnology > * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://msetechnology.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Almeida > Pinto, Jorge de > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > A while ago I put some AD feature thoughts in a textfile not knowing > what to do with them at that moment > > Here goes: > > * Active Directory thoughts: > * OU = security principal > * Possibility to merge Forests > * "Cut and paste" a domain from one forest to another > * Domain concept: > * Domain controller -> directory server (not specific > to a certain domain, but hosting naming contexts) > * Password policies not only per domain but also per > OU > * Keep domain as a replication boundary but remove the > flat structure (prevent context login like NDS -> Aliases?) > * Multiple replication boundaries (naming > contexts) per > directory server > * Remove domain as an entity. Forest is only entity > needed > * Integrate file system and possible other resources into the > directory (e.g. search where security principals are used) > * Permissioning TOP-DOWN and BOTTOM-UP (file system) > * Delegation of Control: ability to dictate MEMBERS attribute > AND the MEMBEROF attribute (so the possibility exists to dictate which > users can be added to what groups) > * Disabling sidhistory? > * Loginscripts at container level > * Using the new DFS-Replication mechanism in R2 for the SYSVOL > > Just some thoughts. Interesting? > > Cheers, > #JORGE# > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 18:25 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > So what are everyone's biggest AD Gripes? I am not talking about > gripes about things that use AD like GPOs[1] or Exchange or NFS or > anything else like that. I mean actual AD really missed the boat > because of this that or the other thing. > > Like > > o I dislike that when you defunct an attribute it doesn't purge the > information in the directory for that attribute. > > o The fact that AD Security policy is managed through a technology > dependent on AD and replicates both within AD and the other > technology. > > o I dislike that there is no true schema delete. > > o I dislike the fact that I can't specify which branches of the tree > replicate where. > > o I dislike the fact that GUIDs are represented in multiple ways in > the directory. > > o I dislike the implementation of property sets especially since they > could be so incredible awesomely cool. Specifically I dislike that an > attribute can only be in a single property set. > > o I dislike creator/owner on SDs. > > o I dislike the lack of configurable business rules. > > o I dislike the fact that I can't run multiple domains on a single > domain controller. > > > > Etc etc. I have more but lets see what others say. Everyone pipe up. > Let's pretend that MS will actually see this, let's further say let's > pretend MS AD Developers will see this. What would you tell them if > you were sitting in the room with them? > > > > joe > > > > > > [1] I do not consider GPOs to be part of AD. They are a technology > that leverages AD. > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended > recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential > information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be > copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are > not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and > any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you. > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
