Inadequate hardware is one, although that's typically less and less of an issue since most server class hardware nowadays is more than robust enough.
Firewalls or router ACL's between sites and only designated DC's can intercommunicate with each other is another reason. "Branch" environments where many remote sites hub back to a central site. Specific BH's may be designated (although they're often put into their own sites anyway) as much for DR reasons as normal replication traffic. The act of connection objects moving around can cause vvjoin's which are relatively CPU intensive. Besides designating them, most customers only configure 1 per site, not realizing they're creating a single point of failure. They also will configure a DC to be a preferred BH when it's the only one in its site. Since it would have been the BH regardless, it's redundant and just adds administrative overhead. They also fail to designate enough BH's to support each partition. --- David Cliffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the same spirit - but on the other side of the > coin :) - I wouldn't > mind hearing a brief elaboration on your earlier > statement: > > "I've found only a few scenarios in which they > proved valuable" > > Perhaps one reason might be when one of the servers > in a site is > underpowered/waiting to be upgraded, etc..? > > -DaveC > Reuters IS&T Service Delivery > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Dean Wells > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:14 PM > To: Send - AD mailing list > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Preferred Bridgeheads > > > Without wishing to labor the point Russ, what aspect > of replication > 'speed' was thought to be improved? I ask as I > often lecture on AD (and > related technologies) and am interested to > understand some of the > misconceptions. > -- > Dean Wells > MSEtechnology > * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://msetechnology.com <http://msetechnology.com/> > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Rimmerman, Russ > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:08 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Preferred Bridgeheads > > > We thought it would "help" with replication speed. > I guess it was more > of a WAG. > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Dean Wells > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 2:13 PM > To: Send - AD mailing list > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Preferred Bridgeheads > > > If you constrain the list of bridgeheads you may be > incapable of > replicating an app. NC in and out of a site since in > order to replicate > a particular partition, the bridgehead in question > must hold a copy of > it ... if the preferred list contains only 2K DCs, > that can't happen .. > for the most part ... a 2K3 ISTG will override your > choices and allocate > a suitable bridgehead for you, it will however whine > and whine and whine > and ... you get the idea. > > I've found only a few scenarios in which they proved > valuable ... may I > ask why you're using them? > -- > Dean Wells > MSEtechnology > * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://msetechnology.com <http://msetechnology.com/> > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Rimmerman, Russ > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:03 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ActiveDir] Preferred Bridgeheads > > > We're almost all Win2k3 Domain Controllers, have a > few left to upgrade. > > Question is, we have at least one DC at each site > configured as a > preferred bridgehead for IP. Is this not a good > idea? Is it best to > not prefer any bridgeheads and let AD do its job? > I'm seeing a lot of > event ID 1567's about it as well. > > Thanks > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > This e-mail is confidential, may contain proprietary > information > of the Cooper Cameron Corporation and its operating > Divisions > and may be confidential or privileged. > > This e-mail should be read, copied, disseminated > and/or used only > by the addressee. If you have received this message > in error please > delete it, together with any attachments, from your > system. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > This e-mail is confidential, may contain proprietary > information > of the Cooper Cameron Corporation and its operating > Divisions > and may be confidential or privileged. > > This e-mail should be read, copied, disseminated > and/or used only > by the addressee. If you have received this message > in error please > delete it, together with any attachments, from your > system. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit our Internet site at > http://www.reuters.com > > To find out more about Reuters Products and Services > visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo > > Any views expressed in this message are those of > the individual > sender, except where the sender specifically > states them to be > the views of Reuters Ltd. > > 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/
