Maybe I can help w/ the ego (after all I consider trimming Dean's ego one of my higher callings in life ;-) ...
Dean, you said you didn't mind if we continued to discuss this thread at one point (a at the time highly volatile thread, which I decided to let settle down), do you remember this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg32470.html Where I think you basically conveyed (IMNHO) I didn't know what I was talking about in regards to what is required for a DS implementation ... >From your two emails in that thread, first you said: > ... that the process of injecting the phantom isn't a behavioral > requirement imposed or carried out by the directory service itself. > It is a requirement imposed by the underlying database and is > necessary because of the mechanism used by ESE to provide uniform > representation of object references (i.e. link pairs). Then in a subsequent email: > Nod, I understand your point but, to me, it's a matter of perspective > -- where does the directory begin and end? From a developers > standpoint, the directory may well be a whole component neatly > organized into a single area of a source tree. From my perspective, > the term directory (in this context) is used to relay the concept of a > (mostly) standards based component with predictable features, > interfaces, behaviors, structures, underlying mechanisms, etc. Any directory service has a form of the infrastructure master DN-cleanup problem, when the "cross-reference" spans replication scopes, irregardless of underlying database technology, ESE, or SQL Server, or anything else you can think of. If they seemingly don't have this problem, then there is some form of replication happening and thus the DN isn't really crossing replication scopes (that's why the GC doesn't have this problem ... as you pointed out in part 1 of the article). So I'd argue the last 2 lines in the first quote were wrong in two ways: (A) ESE doesn't provide uniform representation of object references. That's just patently incorrect. And (B) this isn't an ESE implementation detail, it is a DS implementation detail for being constructed on any kind of database that isn't performing replication (same as SQL, MySQL, BerkleyDB, whatever NDS used, or ESE)? I just want it on record ... 8/17/2005, Dean was wrong once. Thanks, BrettSh ex-Garage Door Operator #7. On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Dean Wells wrote: > Cheeky git . my head, your stomach . at least we'll have the plane to > ourselves! :0) > > > > Best start working on that pilot's license! > > -- > Dean Wells > MSEtechnology > * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://msetechnology.com <http://msetechnology.com/> > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:09 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir][OT]Dean's kick-a## article > > > > Hey I sometimes have to ride on planes with that guy, don't swell his ego > too much... I want to be able to sit on the plane. > > > > :) > > > > -- > > O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm > > > > > > > > _____ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matheesha > Weerasinghe > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] > > joe said "pretty decent" http://blog.joeware.net/2006/06/08/400/ > > > > I think thats an understatement ;-) > > > > However, my profuse thanks to joe too. I wasnt aware of the article until he > blogged it. > > > > M@ > > > > On 8/14/06, Dean Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why thank you . but who said otherwise? ;0) > > -- > Dean Wells > MSE technology > * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://msetechnology.com <http://msetechnology.com/> > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matheesha > Weerasinghe > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 2:35 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] > > > > http://searchwinit.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid1_gci1192821,0 > 0.html?track=NL-463 > <http://searchwinit.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid1_gci1192821, > 00.html?track=NL-463&ad=554811USCA&ad=554808> &ad=554811USCA&ad=554808 > > > > I dont care what anyone says. Thats a damn fine article. > > > > I couldnt possibly thank Dean enough for that info. > > M@ > > > > > > On 8/14/06, Graham Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alter ego ! > > my thanks are due > > worked out a treat - so the GC's are not so ***'d as i thought > > any info on the concept of the phantoms though ?? > > GT > > > Hey Robert, > > > > In the article you posted, the registry key is incorrect in the KB > > content. It lists the registry key as: > > HKCU\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Directory > > > > However, the correct registry key is: > > HKCU\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Directory UI > > > > I've sent a comment to my former employer to ask for them to fix the > > article...next time, test it *before* you post! > > > > Your Alter Ego, > > Robert Williams > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Williams, > > Robert > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:28 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] > > > > Hey Graham, > > > > This may not be what you're experiencing, but it could be worth it to > > check to see how many members you have in the group(s) in question. By > > default, if the group has over 500 members in it, the user icons inside > > the group will turn grey. Check out this article for more information: > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q281923/ > > > > Let us know if that turned out to be the cause. > > > > Have a great day! > > > > Robert Williams > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:01 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [ActiveDir] > > > > Dear all, am experiencing issues that i think attributable to the > > concept of Active > > Directory phantoms > > > > the symptom is that when we open certain global groups the membership > > list comes out > > with grey icons > > > > this is not all groups - affected ones being - Domain Users / Domain > > computers > > > > must confess to not a full understanding of the issue here -but it seems > > this > > relates in some way to GC lookup ?? > > > > i can for sure confirm that the GC port 3268 is open on the GC's > > > > not sure why as the group / user members are in the same domain ? > > > > after the understanding of what is going on here is, of course 'HOW DO > > WE FIX' ?? > > > > technet seems to reference a concept of 'phantom clean up task' - a > > process that > > runs on the server running 'INFRASTRUCURE MASTER' fsmo role on a > > scheduled basis to > > resolve the directory issue. > > > > would seem not in this case ? > > > > as a point to note, neither netdiag or dcdiag are coming up with nothing > > concliusive > > in this respect. > > > > help as always gladly received > > > > GT > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
