|
The OP’s message sounds more like AutoSiteCoverage. Was
there no DC for that site that has NY and NJ DCs registered under it at some
point? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ion Gott The
primary reason I have disabled site link bridging in the past has been to
prevent domain controllers in spokes with replicating with other dc's in spoke
sites that are in another hub site when they should only be replicating with
DC's in the hub sites and second with spoke dc's in their own hub. If for
example you had three hub sites and one hub site failed you may want the dc's
in the spokes to replicate with one of the other regional hubs rather than the
KCC generating replication links with other hubs spoke dc's throughout the
environment. Site link
costing of course comes into play here too... Ion V. Gott CISSP,
MCSE + Security/Messaging From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of joe Having
site link bridging should not have resulted in DCs from different sites
registering in the same site unless their wasn't full coverage for the domains
or if one of the sites didn't have a GC. Something isn't right here. Not
that that might not be a response they heard from an architecture review
though, the quality of those reviews/health checks/RAPs and the
guidance given at the end vary drammatically in quality based on the analyst
involved. I have found in general though the AD folks can't give any good
advice on Exchange and the Exchange healthcheck folks can't give very good
advice on AD and MSFT doesn't have an all consuming healthcheck
that takes all of it into account. So you end up getting a case of one
healthcheck pointing at the other for sources of problems. Usually what you see
is the AD folks saying everything is fine and the Exchange folks saying AD is
in trouble but not being able to point at anything in particular.
joe -- O'Reilly
Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] A
friend of a friend when designing a new forest was asked to disable site link
bridging (forest wide) based upon the reasoning given below. I
fail to see any connection between the description below and site link
bridging. Does
anyone see how these issues could be caused by bridging and furthermore, why
the issue would have been resolved by disabling bridging??? neil PS
I don't necessarily believe that MS really did suggest disabling bridging would
help - I merely copy/pasted the original thread :) ___________________________ We
had an issue where the Domain Controllers in the New York site and New Jersey
site were being registered under one site in DNS. This was causing users to
authenticate to DC’s over the WAN link as well as Exchange servers using
GC’s over the WAN link. This was causing some delays in users logging on
as well as outlook being slow using the address book. Also
servers were synching up their time with DC’s in other sites causing w32
time errors at night and during the weekend while backups were running. This
caused some servers to have their time offset be 3-5 seconds. We
had Microsoft on-site services evaluate the infrastructure and they recommended
that we disable the Site Link Bridging to increase performance of the above
issues. PLEASE
READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended
for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient
of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete your copy from
your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any further action in
reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of communication and Nomura
International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted by law, accept
responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or completeness of, or (b) the
presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling code in,
this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of this email is
sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated this email:
(1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as, investment
research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended for
informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation or offer to
buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc does not
provide investment services to private customers. Authorised and regulated
by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England no. 1550505
VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand, London,
EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies. |
Title: RE: Site Link Bridging
- RE: [ActiveDir] Site Link Bridging Ion Gott
- RE: [ActiveDir] Site Link Bridging Brian Desmond
- RE: [ActiveDir] Site Link Bridging neil.ruston
- RE: [ActiveDir] Site Link Bridging Freddy HARTONO
- [ActiveDir] ODBC driver packager adriaoramos
