Hi Guido, What you write sounds good to me.
Yours, Sakari > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Grillenmeier, Guido > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 10:13 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Create a group with a specified SID > > rgd question B) > why should these groups have been removed from the NT4 BDCs > if the other > 2003 DCs (incl. the new PDCE after the upgraded one was removed) > apparently never knew of them? They would not have had a tombstone > either and as such the PDCE would not remove the groups from the BDCs > either. > > /Guido > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sakari Kouti > Sent: Mittwoch, 14. September 2005 21:03 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Create a group with a specified SID > > Hi All, > > Now I drove to the "missing group site" to see the things with my own > eyes. > > I found out a slight detail that affects the case :-). In addition to > the three WS2003 DCs, there were also some NT4 BDCs left. So > the problem > of where the missing groups existed turned out to have quite > an obvious > solution... (Actually, a little too obvious, because we all missed it. > Not that I can blame anyone, because I told you that the the problem > domain has three DCs, and I should have known about the NT4 ones...) > > Two things remained a mystery, though. > > A) Why they had disappeared from the WS2003 DCs in the first place. My > guess is that because a replication issue they didn't replicate out of > the upgraded PDC before those guys removed and formatted the upgraded > PDC. (this I already knew but forgot to include in the case > description > of my previous message, sorry) They did check that replication was ok, > before they removed the DC, though. > > B) From the in-place upgrade in July until last week (about six weeks, > that is) the groups still existed in the NT4 BDC, although NT > replication should have removed them. So why didn't this > work. My guess > is a WINS (or name resolution) problem, so that the NT4 BDCs > didn't find > their new PDC (emulator). > > Yours, Sakari > > PS. Even thought the explanation turned out to be quite obvious, this > was still an interesting case. > 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/
