I am not certain I would like to use hosts, but I do think it would be nice if I could put in SRV records into hosts files IF I wanted to use them. I know having the LMHOSTS file as a backup to WINS always gave me a warm fuzzy feeling even if I wasn't having WINS issues. It can be a pain to manage, but that is like any management issue, it can be... Well managed if you are doing your job properly.
joe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Schofield Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 5:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD I used to work at a place where WINS and DNS were used. IMO, WINS was faster in resolution and *just* worked but is not standard as DNS resolution is. DNS integration with AD is a pain and can be a hassle when troubleshooting, sometimes doing a ipconfig /flush client and flushing the DNS on the DC's to resolve an issue. SP1 has several fixes for w2k3 DNS but I'm sure something else will come up. :) I say we just use hosts files again. :( Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "joe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 5:18 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD >I wasn't saying I like WINS better than DNS or vice versa, just said I >don't > like DNS. I especially dislike the AD/DNS integration. I don't like > chicken > and egg problems. > > BTW, as you bring up WINS. 1. I've never had a corrupted WINS Database. 2. > Fewer admins had name resolution issues replication based issues with WINS > than they do with DNS. 3. The complexity of DNS seems to put many admins > off > the deep end, interestingly enough, the same admins who said they couldn't > figure out WINS say they know all about DNS. > > But again, my comment wasn't I like WINS more than DNS, or I like any name > resolution systems better than DNS, it was simply I don't like DNS. > > > _____ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Kern > Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:42 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD > > > ok, i'll bite. > GPO's, i understand but whats there to hate about DNS? > its better than WINS. > I've never had a corrputed dns database. > > thanks > > > On 10/8/05, joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, GPOs aren't AD. GPOs are an application that use AD. I hate GPOs. > DNS > too. > > :o) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan > Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 11:19 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD > > Interesting question - and as to the 'implode point' for ESE/Jet Blue, > Brettsh can answer that one. I'm pretty sure that we have a good idea on > where the point of diminishing returns is, but it likely FAR exceeds what > anyone might practically do today - even with added classes and > attributes. > > As for why ESE - it works, it is self maintaining to a great degree, there > is very little overhead in the DB, and it is quite optimized to the type > of > work that is required for AD. Brettsh can certainly add more. > > I am one for preaching more svelte attitudes on your AD. As joe > mentions - > it's for authN purposes first and foremost. It CAN handle DNS, it does > GPO > (though - truth be told the majority of GPO function is but a link to an > attribute, while the actual GPO pieces reside in SYSVOL, so not much AD - > lots of FRS), etc. > > App Parts make sense in some arenas where the amount of data is going to > be > very small and contained to just a few areas. I, too, like joe advocate > ADAM. I try to sell ADAM constantly as THE solution for most anything > that > doesn't have to do with authN. Customer AppDev wants to stuff new things > into AD constantly. Partly, they don't know the down sides. Partly, they > think they have to learn something new. Partly, they don't really care if > YOUR AD is affected by their decisions, as long as they deliver the > solution > > in the timeframe specified. So, it's up to you, Mr. Admin and Mr. > Architect > to tell whoever wants to use your AD, no - we don't do it that way because > it's very bad. We will use ADAM. Get used to it. > > Rick > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] On Behalf Of Mylo > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 8:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD > > That's a good point about plonking stuff in AD.... a case of once a good > thing comes along everyone wants to climb aboard. I remember doing > ZENworks > stuff with Novell where all the application configuration information for > software distribution was shunted into NDS/E-Directory... all that bloat > adds up replication-wise (still, at least there was partitioning). > > One thing I am curious about though is why MS opted for JET as the DB of > choice for AD.. was it the only viable option at the time ? What's the > ceiling on actual database size before it caves in (performance-wise)? > > Mylo > > joe wrote: > >>I am going to basically say what the other said only I am going to put >>it this way >> >>IF the data needs to be available at all locations or a majority of >>locations where your domain controllers are located, consider adding >>the data to AD. >> >>IF the data is going to be needed only at a couple of sites or a single >>site, put them into another store. My preference being AD/AM unless you >>need to do some complicated joins or queries of the data that LDAP >>doesn't support. >> >>There is also the possibility of using app partitions but if you were >>going to go that far, just use AD/AM. >> >>The thing I have about sticking this data into AD is that AD is >>becoming, in many companies, a dumping ground of all the crap that was >>in all the other directories in the company. I realize this was the >>initial view from MS on how this should work but I worked in a large >>company and thought that was silly even then. >> >>The number one most important thing for AD is to authenticate Windows > users. >>Every time you dump more crap into AD you are working towards impacting >>that capability or the capability to quickly restore or the ability to >>quickly add more DCs. The more I see the one stop everything loaded >>into ADs the more I think that the NOS directory should be NOS only. >>Plus, I wonder how long before we hit some interesting object size >>limits. I have asked for details from some MS folks a couple of times >>on the issues with admin limit exceeded errors that you get when >>overpopulating a normal multivalue attribute (i.e. not linked) and it >>causing no other attributes to be added to the object. I wonder what >>other > limits like that exist. >> >> >> >> joe >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Shaff >>Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 12:16 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD >> >>Group, >> >>My manager wanted me to check, even though, I don't think that it is >>possible, but, I will present the question. >> >>He would like to add some custom fields, about 30, to AD. He would >>like to add bio information into AD to be pulled by Sharepoint and >>other applications for people to read. I think that this is a waste of >>time, space and effort. However, it is not my call and if this is what >>he > wants.... >> >>What are everyone's thoughts on the topic? >> >>Thanks >>S >>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/> > 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 > <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/ > <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/
