|
I would agree with your comments whole heartedly. I don’t think this is a good idea. Add to the fact that we are running Exchange 2003 and all of our DCs are also GCs.
As to why “management” is directing us to do this, one can only surmise…My guess is they are thinking of this as a way to save on hardware costs and reduce the number of servers to be managed.
Thanks for your input.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Molkentin, Steve
Ada,
I am intrigued as to why "management" are directing you to do this. What benefits do they percieve? Do they understand the nature of the 2K3 directory and the load 7,000 users puts on it?
This is not a criticism - just a curious thinking out loud moment...
Personally - I wouldn't do it. Some would say a DC is a sacred thing, not to be toyed with. Proof of concept is always good in these scenarios... if you were to set this up in a lab, even with just two VMWare-ed DC's, you could show the overhead this would place on the machine and help them to understand the additional cost this will bring.
Remember, a DC that is just a DC (AD, DNS, maybe DHCP) doesn't need to be a gutsy box - it can just be a PC rebuilt with Win2K3 server on it. However it does need to stay up all the time. ;)
themolk.
|
Title: Virtual DCs
- [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Rivera, Ada
- Re: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Timo Ed
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Robert Rutherford
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Molkentin, Steve
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Kevin . Bowen
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Brian Desmond
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Rivera, Ada
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Lucas, Bryan
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs neil.ruston
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Presley, Steven
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Lucas, Bryan
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Brad Smith
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Brett Shirley
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Noah Eiger
- RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Alex Alborzfard
- Re: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Al Mulnick
- Re: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs Matt Hargraves
