Thanks, Mike, that helps clarify it a bit. I look forward to learning more about Win2K8.
------------------------------------------------------ Wayne Eisenberg Server and PC Support Manager Pepsi Bottling Ventures, LLC ________________________________ From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:48 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 2008 AD question A RODC doesn't store passwords, except for those in specific groups, especially administrative passwords. It may talk to any RWDC, not just the "PDC". It may be a GC, or not. If you want to look at it as a BDC, feel free. But it isn't JUST that. It's designed to provide DC/GC capabilities in locations where there is little or no physical security, without jeopardizing the accounts database. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Eisenberg, Wayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:38 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 2008 AD question <aside> Don't even get me started on the superiority of eDirectory over AD. Novell has been eating MS's lunch, technically speaking, for years. I'm still amazed at how bad their marketing dept has mangled the company's fortunes. </aside> I understand generally what the functions are meant to be, but my question was more of a comparison of the 2008 RODC and the NT4 BDC. How are they different, if they are different at all? If they're not different, how is this an advance for AD? Isn't it then just a roll-back to NT4 due to the inherent weakness of AD? ------------------------------------------------------ Wayne Eisenberg Server and PC Support Manager Pepsi Bottling Ventures, LLC ________________________________ From: Tom Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:12 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 2008 AD question >From what I've read one of the functions of a read-only DC is to enhance security in branch offices. There's a chapter about it in my 2008 book (Windows 2008 Server) and there are probably white papers on technet as well. An interesting concept, something Novell's eDirectory has had for years. >>> "Eisenberg, Wayne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5/20/2008 9:54 AM >>> I have a question that maybe someone here knows the answer to. All this talk about this great new advance in AD technology - a read-only DC. Maybe I don't have all the information yet, but it sure sounds a whole lot like an NT4 BDC to me. That was really the difference between a PDC and a BDC - the PDC was writable and the BDC wasn't. It sounds to me like maybe MS is acknowledging that AD is not all that robust after all and going back to the NT4 model, but spinning it to make people think it's an 'advance'. What do you think? Is it really a better AD or is it just the spin-meisters at work? ------------------------------------------------------ Wayne Eisenberg Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
