Thanks very much, Steve. I've created the properly defined subnet, but I'm confused about exactly which DNS registrations I should be looking for.
Richard On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Steve Kradel <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, AD and things that depend on AD will generally do fine with one > site and no subnet mappings at all. Once there are two or more sites, > you must map every client to a site via ADS&S or things will start to > go off the rails. > > Go ahead and create a second, larger subnet for the site, wait a > decent interval, and check the DNS registrations. If all is well you > can (if you like) delete the unneeded too-small subnet object. > > The question was long, but the answer is short. ;) > > --Steve > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Richard Stovall <[email protected]> > wrote: > > -- Long message below. Please pardon the verbosity. -- > > > > Part one - one question at the end. > > > > I am incorporating a second physical location to $work. I had been > > pondering a child domain for the new location, but the reasons for > possibly > > going in that direction have been mitigated, and I have decided to just > join > > the second location to my single domain forest. > > > > In preparation for installing a DC at the new location, I created a > subnet > > and site in ADSS. I have not yet added the machine that will be the new > DC > > to the domain. > > > > A few minutes after creating the new site, Exchange (single server with > all > > roles) stopped accepting client connections and started borking on > > processing mail (14 messages wound up in the poison message queue). > > > > I gleaned from the Exchange server's Application log that Exchange could > not > > determine what AD site it is in. (Event 2501 - Process > MSEXCHANGEADTOPOLOGY > > (PID=1580). The site monitor API was unable to verify the site name for > this > > Exchange computer - Call=DsGetSiteNameW Error code=800703e5. Make sure > that > > Exchange server is correctly registered on the DNS server.) > > > > Googling led me to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2025528 which gave > me an > > idea of how to resolve the immediate issues with Exchange. Sure enough, > > nltest /dsgetsite reported "Getting DC name failed: Status = 1919 0x77f > > ERROR_NO_SITENAME". I deleted the new site, checked AD replication, then > > restarted the Exchange AD Topology service (which also restarted a host > of > > other dependent services). Nltest /dsgetsite then reported > > "Default-First-Site-Name". > > > > All is seemingly back to normal, the App and System logs look good, I've > > released the messages that got put into the poison message queue, mail is > > flowing normally, OWA works again, and Outlook Anywhere is functioning. > > > > Question regarding this event - Is there anything else I should look at > or > > be aware of as far as Exchange is concerned after an event like this? > > > > > > Part two - How to fix the underlying problem? - Two questions at the end. > > > > I took a closer look at ADSS and discovered a couple of things. The HQ > > domain was created in 2002 and has some odd quirks related to DNS name > etc, > > but I had never noticed something about the single ADSS subnet before. > It > > is named x.x.200.192/26, but our production subnet is really > x.x.200.0/23. > > The Exchange server's ip is x.x.200.216, so by pure coincidence it does > > actually fall into the too-small /26 defined in ADSS. Also > coincidentally, > > my 3 HQ DCs fall into the /26 range as well since they are x.x.200.246, > > x.x.200.247 and x.x.200.249. > > > > The next oddity is that if I view the subnet's properties in ADSS, it is > not > > associated with the Default-First-Site-Name. I can choose that site from > > the drop-down list of sites, but it is blank right now. > > > > My guess is that Exchange hasn't had issues with finding the site before > > because there was only one. My supposition is that if I associate the > > existing /26 subnet definition with the site Default-First-Site-Name, > that > > Exchange will be able to stay in the the correct site after adding an > > additional one for the new remote facility. > > > > Question one - are these assumptions likely correct? > > > > Question two - How can I correct the too-small subnet definition? Is it > > possible to edit the subnet, or should I look at creating a new, > correctly > > defined subnet that could eventually replace the current one? > > > > I hope this all makes sense, and I apologize again for the length. > > > > Any thoughts or suggestions are most welcome. > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist > > --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
