>Hmmm...I will have to read that Q article a couple more times (until it >makes sense) and see if it looks useful. ;-)
LOL. I have read it about 6 times and still scratch my head. I posted that because that did come up before and I was hoping some one would remember and post. >> Also, RAID5 is a not appropriate for Imail? Others have posted on this. > >Possibly under heavy loads, but I doubt it in my case. These servers are 50 >times faster than what's needed for IMail. I don't imagine the IMail I/O >for our staff would often overflow the cache on the RAID controller. But >even so, the current NT server is also RAID 5 and it smokes (not literally). It probably does not make a difference in your case, but it is a point in that the spool file are the user mailbox directories are extremely disk I/O intensive, and in RAID 5, the data has to be written to all of the drives plus the archive bit must be created and written. Makes sense that will slow things down. >I still have the off-line BDC handy. In fact, I'm afraid to turn it >off...it's just disconnected from the network. As I understand it, (and >this could be completely wrong) caution is required if you are concerned >that apps on DCs will fail when in native mode. But we only have one BDC >with one app (IMail). We've done the whole thing in a test environment and >there were not problems. We also have a few member servers that run IIS and >use the domain for authentication. That should not be an issue with native >mode either. But that's it. > >Also, I'm told by the chief AD guy on our campus that compatibility mode >leaves some serious security issues (e.g. gives far more permissions that >should be). In our case, our departmental AD domain is a child domain of >the university-wide domain/tree/forest which is already native. And that >university-wide domain will have public labs and students in it. For this >reason, security is of utmost importance. And since we only have one BDC >with one app, there's not much worry about problems in native mode. Ah, understood. As far as the "leaves some serious security issues," that is the same thing people were saying when Code Red hit. Only problem was Microsoft had a patch out that protected servers against it 9 months before Code Red came out. The reason I mentioned having the BDC locked up is I have heard horror stories where someone just disconnected the BDC from the network, then some one came in over the weekend or night, say the server disconnected, panicked and reconnected it and caused havoc. >>Douglas said: Native mode right? Double check the local DNS is what immediately >>comes to mind. > > Not sure what you mean? We're running in compatibility mode right now. You >mean check the local DNS servers that 2000 is using? The DNS servers configured >in IMail? Can you elaborate a little? Douglas brought up a good point. How is the DNS structure now compared to when it was on NT 4.0? Can you explain your DNS structure? >IMAP download of 1600 headers (my Imail list folder ;-)) (using OE6): >Live NT4 BDC Imail server: 20 seconds >New 2000/AD DC Imail server: 2 minutes, 31 seconds >Test 2000/AD DC Imail server: 20 seconds > >Logging into web mail (same mailboxes duplicated on all three servers): >Live NT4 BDC Imail server: 3 seconds >New 2000/AD DC Imail server: 1 minute, 34 seconds >Test 2000/AD DC Imail server: 13 seconds Can you post some of the logs? (We are always asking for logs.) 8:04 PDT 10/10/02 John Tolmachoff IT Manager, Network Engineer RelianceSoft, Inc. Fullerton, CA 92835 www.reliancesoft.com To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
