How about the VSMT for VS2005? ;) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 12:45 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list
Have you guys checked out the PtoV tool on VMware? Rich Milburn wrote: >I kinda like the idea of running a DC in a VS machine, and having an >online realtime copy of it somewhere in addition to incremental >backups... and you should be able to bring up the vhd on any box, not >just one with similar hardware, and without having to go through Laura's >7 step DR plan :) (reference thread [ActiveDir] AD Restore Problem) > >But can you have a VSS-type remote copy of your DC session vhd file? > >(Forgive me if I bring up topics that were adequately addressed during >my hiatus in Windows Desktop Deployment World...) > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- - >--- >Rich Milburn >MCSE, Microsoft MVP - Directory Services >Sr Network Analyst, Field Platform Development >Applebee's International, Inc. >4551 W. 107th St >Overland Park, KS 66207 >913-967-2819 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- - >--- >"I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn >how to do it." - Pablo Picasso > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, >CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] >Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 1:12 PM >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list > >As a representative of the SBS community there is not a day that goes by > >that the 'can we cluster SBS' or 'can I have a hot server' doesn't come >up. [if you have SA you can have a cold server] > >With 9/11, with Katrina, with the potential for earthquakes in >California ... honestly... the answer for any small business should not >be 'well hope your backup is good... you have tested it right?' >Conversely I would argue the home user needs to be better protected than > >they are now. [but that's way OT] I think the fault tolerance for >small firms is being a bit pushed to the asp/hosted services model in >the marketplace even though us control freaks aren't always fond of >that. > >Actually we 'can' have additional domain controllers..just that the SBS >has to hold the FSMO roles and be the PDC. By the time you reconfigure >that additional DC to take over the FSMO roles...maybe your time is >better spent fixing the PDC, ya know? > >Is there a good story for small firms to have redundancy, fault >tolerance without a fat checkbook? > >Nope, I would argue...not really.....right now imaging is the only way. > >And in that instance.. you probably want to stay with a single DC and >not suffer the wrath of Brett and ghosting your DCs. > >A recent whitepaper on the subject of the 'myths' of SBS: >http://msmvps.com/bradley/archive/2005/10/04/68986.aspx >http://msmvps.com/bradley/archive/2005/10/05/69035.aspx > >I still would argue that virtualization needs to be done WAY more than >we are doing now...but that's just my wacko thoughts. > > >Rich Milburn wrote: > > > >>I think the biggest reason people want to be able to run multiple >>domains on one server is the same reason practically no one (except for >>SBS) installs just one DC, and the same reason we always install a >>minimum of 2 for a domain. We have a forest root and 2 child domains >>model, and it takes us 6 servers to run that - for basically 2 >>directories and fewer than 5000 users. That seems like a waste of >>hardware in some situations - especially if you have multiple orgs that >>you run. The parallel might be for a web hosting company to have 2 >> >> >full > > >>web servers for each domain they host - in case 1 goes down, they still >>have a second. VS is an answer, yes, although you still need a full >>server license for each VM. The thing with domains is you don't want >> >> >to > > >>only have 1 online copy of the directory. MS didn't seem too convinced >>there was a good reason to have an online second server - they cited >>backups as a good solution to the issue. In a big org the cost of an >>additional server to provide redundancy is negligible, but is having an >>online copy (second DC) really the BEST way to do this? And it doesn't >>help SBS users, since they can (correct me if I'm wrong) only have 1 >> >> >DC. > > >>I realize it may be the best way we have with W2K3, but how could the >>issue of redundancy be addressed with AD differently than having 2 DCs >>minimum per domain? Anyone have any ideas? >> >>Rich >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe >>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 9:20 PM >>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list >> >>Yeah I can say that it isn't in Longhorn. As the dev guys put it, this >>is a >>tough one. It wouldn't just be a nobrainer if they had separate >>instances of >>AD, there are just tons of other things involved that make it extremely >>difficult. It was something that was brought up in the summit though, >>not >>sure how much I can say around it other than no, it won't be there. >> >>MS feels the focus of this is dramatically reduced now as well due to >>the >>fact that VS is available and can run DCs. Also the Server Core DCs >>helps >>here as well as the DCs will have a smaller footprint. If folks are NOT >>in >>agreement with that assessment, definitely speak up, it is too late for >>Longhorn but possibly the opportunity exists to convince them for >>BlackComb. >> >> joe >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Kaiser >>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 9:37 PM >>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list >> >>I'd also like to see the ability to run DCs for multiple domains on the >>same >>server. SMBs with limited resources balk at having to buy additional >>server >>hardware for redundancy on multiple domains, especially when the AD >> >> >load > > >>on >>the DCs is minimal. This feature sounds like an offshoot of your list >>below. >>If you can run AD as a service, it might not be that hard to allow >>multiple >>domains similar to multiple websites/DBs on one server... >> >>I remember discussing this with Stuart Kwan at DEC a couple of years >>ago. I >>hope it makes it into the mix... >> >>********************** >>Charlie Kaiser >>W2K3 MCSA/MCSE/Security, CCNA >>Systems Engineer >>Essex Credit / Brickwalk >>510 595 5083 >>********************** >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe >>>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:25 PM >>>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list >>> >>>Vista is the client OS. I don't believe they have named Longhorn >>>Server yet.I am voting for something like Windows Server 5.4.0 or >>>something like that. I realize that the marketing group would have >>>something to say about it but I figure the best thing from them is if >>>they pronounced their thoughts from the bottom of Lake Washington. >>>People don't install servers because they have cool names. >>> >>>The biggest non-NDA pieces that I have heard announced in conferences >>>or seen on the web already is the Read Only DC to limit security >>>exposure for WAN deployments, restartable AD that can be >>>stopped/started as necessary, DA/Admin separation so that you can have >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>>an Admin on a DC that "can't" achieve Domain-wide DA level rights, and >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>>DCs running on Server Foundation or now its called Server Core which >>>is a GUI-challenged Windows Server. >>> >>>I can also say that there are a myriad of GUI updates for the Admin >>>tools though I can't state specifics. BJ Whalen who was involved with >>>the GPMC project has been brought in to work on admin experience and >>>anyone who has worked with GPOs with and without GPMC know that he >>>really helped out. >>> >>>All in all, there is some very cool stuff and MS has really been >>>listening to the community on what they want and need. I know that >>>this list is watched for ideas and such and has been the source of >>>DCRs internally. So if you have ideas, spout them here, they will most >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>>certainly be heard. They may not make Longhorn as it is getting a bit >>>late to add major changes but your ideas could make it into a later >>>rev. >>> >>> >>> joe >>> >>> >>>________________________________ >>> >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Wood >>>Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 3:46 PM >>>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>Subject: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list >>> >>> >>>Hi, >>> >>>With Windows Vista on it's way what's on people's wish list as far as >>>Active Directory is concerned? Also are there any big enhancements >>>due? >>> >>>Thanks >>>Steven >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>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/ >> >>-------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. >>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/ > > >> >> >> >> > > > -- Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? http://www.threatcode.com 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/
