I was simply stating that when DNS as a service is compared
to other services which run on a DC (such as Kerberos etc) then DNS
accounts for very little overhead.
neil
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: 18 May 2006 14:03
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT
<trying this in rich text from gmail to see if it floats; let me know if
you can't see the text joe :)>
Um, no. (Yes, it does have to be a DC to be a GC.) But other than scalability and simplicity related to troubleshooting/recoverability, what exactly do you sacrifice if you put Exchange on a GC?
There are those that think that putting Exchange on a GC is the way to go. There are others that would disagree but what else is new. For those that have been implementing and designing Exchange for a number of years (joe's not really that old compared to Dean ;-) this concept would seem familiar to the Exchange 4-5x days.
As a number of apps were promised to do, Exchange heavily utilizes and therefore relies on the AD directory for authentication, authorization, and directory services (identification) (i.e. directory lookups to aid in mail routing, server lookups (DNS), configuration settings (GPO), and GAL services, etc). Exchange actually does it better than most, although as joe points out, there is always room for improvement.
If you look at the history, there were some dark days around the Exchange
2000 deployments for Exchange. 2003 got much better and hopefully E12
(what's it called now? I forget) won't get "office-ized" by the org changes
going on at Microsoft. I've seen the "servers" that the office team put out and
I'm thoroughly less than impressed. Hopefully that gets better, but I'm not a
desktop guy and I'm not interested in becoming a desktop focused expert.
Those desktop machines and office productivity apps are prime targets for
commoditization over the next 5 years IMHO. Too much is at stake for it not to
be. But I digress.
<history> The original implementation of AD was expected by Microsoft
architects to replace ALL of the other directory services you might have and
become the centerpiece to your networked computing infrastructure. It's
why you'll find things like DNS integrated into the directory. Well, one
reason anyway. Anyhow, as time wore on, adoption was slower than hoped for and
one reason was that it was a big pill to swallow. Many large companies
already had a working NT model (I say that tongue in cheek: it was limping along
in large orgs), had working DNS models including administrivia and DR processes
(shame on you if you don't), and a working directory structure based on the LDAP
standards that, although they started as a client access protocol to X.500
directories, become synonymous with server side implementations. Whatever, only
a purist cares I'm sure. It was realized that although AD had a place in the
environment, it was not likely going to rule the world overnight as originally
expected and designed and marketed and.... It could however be made to play well
and nicely and a lot of refinement was put into that release and now R2.
Meanwhile, Exchange was the "killer" app that caused people to even
consider that major leap from NT4 to AD (which we know now is really not that
big a deal, but boy was it scary then, right?) Some are still migrating or
just getting started, but to each their own.
Exchange was often bashed for not being scalable soooooo.... it makes sense
to off-load some of the services to a single purpose machine - we know it as a
domain controller/dns host/directory server/etc. Wow. What a great
idea. Wait. What if you don't have a network design that can take
advantage of that? Maybe it was geared up and refined to be better with a
mainframe centric computing model and maybe NT 4.0 was existing there? Hmm... Or
maybe your company doesn't have a network that looks like a single 40-story
(storey for those across the pond) building with one single high-speed network?
Maybe you have users accessing your email and directory from around the globe
and maybe 40% of your users are mobile at any given time? Maybe
more. Exchange won't play nice with a network like that out of the
box because it was geared up to be scalable. Want a single server to
handle 4,000 heavy mapi users? You can't do that with Exchange 5.x, but
you can with Exchange 200x. Why? Many reasons and I won't bore you with the
details. What's important is that if you look at the topology, it might
make more sense to put the directory back onto Exchange computers based on the
way your network works. Can you scale it as high? No. Is it simple to recover?
No (it should be easier than it is IMHO). But does it serve the purpose better?
Yes. Can it handle that 150 user density South African office without being
hampered by the hamstrung internet connection off the continent? I've been told
it's much better performance than using something like cached mode clients or
OWA if the server is local. I can believe that.
Help me understand why I wouldn't put Exchange on a GC in more situations
than I don't? What would I lose?
Neil, I'm curious about what you'd pick for an authentication service over
AD?
Heck, now I'm just rambling though, 'cause this is likely blank ;)
Heck, now I'm just rambling though, 'cause this is likely blank ;)
Al
On 5/18/06, Carlos Magalhaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well currently to have a GC you need that machine to be a DC and as we
> all know you don't put Exchange on a DC ;)
>
> Exchange already feels special ;)
>
> Carlos Magalhaes
>
> Krenceski, William wrote:
> > Why can't exchange just have the GC on it somehow. I'm not a developer
> > by any means of the word. It just seems that if Exchange is "SPECIAL"
> > make it feel special......
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of joe
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:21 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT
> >
> > LOL.
> >
> > For those not at the DEC 2006 Dean and joe show presentation, Mark's
> > 'Exchange is "SPECIAL"' comment is a direct reference to something I
> > said when bouncing around talking about AD and bad applications. I
> > miraculously stopped and looked straight at a Microsoft MVP for Exchange
> > (Mark) while spouting the truism Exchange is "SPECIAL" in relation to
> > how it abuses AD. I was in a groove when I said it so I didn't actually
> > realize I was looking at Mark or else I probably would have bust out
> > laughing as I did later when he explained what I had done.
> >
> > I think all of the Exchange MVPs tend to have a special place in their
> > heart for me as does the entire Exchange Dev team. ;o)
> >
> >
> > joe
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
> > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Arnold
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 5:29 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT
> >
> > Laura, a "Mucker" is, in English, a good friend.
> > You are probably not to be termed a Mucker, other words might apply, but
> > Jimmy is one of mine and Dean/Joe is one of yours.
> >
> > Oh, and Joe is old and smells of wee, so pay no heed to his Exchange
> > rants.
> > Exchange is indeed "special" because it's such a wonderful solution. OK,
> > I should shut up now and go back to my padded cell.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Laura E. Hunter
> > Sent: 17 May 2006 21:39
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT
> >
> >
> >> BTW, anyone know what a mucker is? I am trying to figure out if I am
> >> supposed to be morally outraged. <eg>
> >>
> >> joe
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I use "mucker" as a compliment, but in my vernacular it's used in
> > reference to a semi-skilled hockey player whose lack of scoring ability
> > is balanced by his ability to check an opposing player into sometime
> > next week.
> >
> > So I guess what I'm saying is...draw your own conclusions. :-)
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> > This message has been scanned by Antigen. Every effort has been made to
> > ensure it is clean.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any release, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify the author immediately by replying to this message and deleting the original message. Thank you.
> >
> > 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/
>
On 5/18/06, Carlos Magalhaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well currently to have a GC you need that machine to be a DC and as we
> all know you don't put Exchange on a DC ;)
>
> Exchange already feels special ;)
>
> Carlos Magalhaes
>
> Krenceski, William wrote:
> > Why can't exchange just have the GC on it somehow. I'm not a developer
> > by any means of the word. It just seems that if Exchange is "SPECIAL"
> > make it feel special......
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of joe
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:21 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT
> >
> > LOL.
> >
> > For those not at the DEC 2006 Dean and joe show presentation, Mark's
> > 'Exchange is "SPECIAL"' comment is a direct reference to something I
> > said when bouncing around talking about AD and bad applications. I
> > miraculously stopped and looked straight at a Microsoft MVP for Exchange
> > (Mark) while spouting the truism Exchange is "SPECIAL" in relation to
> > how it abuses AD. I was in a groove when I said it so I didn't actually
> > realize I was looking at Mark or else I probably would have bust out
> > laughing as I did later when he explained what I had done.
> >
> > I think all of the Exchange MVPs tend to have a special place in their
> > heart for me as does the entire Exchange Dev team. ;o)
> >
> >
> > joe
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
> > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Arnold
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 5:29 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT
> >
> > Laura, a "Mucker" is, in English, a good friend.
> > You are probably not to be termed a Mucker, other words might apply, but
> > Jimmy is one of mine and Dean/Joe is one of yours.
> >
> > Oh, and Joe is old and smells of wee, so pay no heed to his Exchange
> > rants.
> > Exchange is indeed "special" because it's such a wonderful solution. OK,
> > I should shut up now and go back to my padded cell.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Laura E. Hunter
> > Sent: 17 May 2006 21:39
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT
> >
> >
> >> BTW, anyone know what a mucker is? I am trying to figure out if I am
> >> supposed to be morally outraged. <eg>
> >>
> >> joe
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I use "mucker" as a compliment, but in my vernacular it's used in
> > reference to a semi-skilled hockey player whose lack of scoring ability
> > is balanced by his ability to check an opposing player into sometime
> > next week.
> >
> > So I guess what I'm saying is...draw your own conclusions. :-)
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> > This message has been scanned by Antigen. Every effort has been made to
> > ensure it is clean.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any release, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify the author immediately by replying to this message and deleting the original message. Thank you.
> >
> > 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/
>
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.
