Yes, the FSMO roles are irrelevant to this purpose, so this is not a requirement, merely a personal preference.
But, as I pointed out, most Windows shops (not all, just most) have their DNS AD-integrated and running on their DCs. Thus, it makes sense to keep one of your DCs physical, because it will also be running DNS. On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 21:47, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not aware of FSMO roles having anything to do with DNS. So why do you > need a physical DC (with or without FSMO roles)? Just keep a physical DNS > server around... > > Cheers > Ken > > ________________________________________ > From: Kurt Buff [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2009 10:08 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Pros/Cons of putting PDC/2DC on Virtual Server > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 15:30, Bill Songstad (WCUL) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> If my SAN had a major issue, neither my VMs or my physical DC would have >> anything to doÿÿ All my clients could authenticate, but they wouldnÿÿ™t >> have anything to access. >> >> >> >> I really feel like ÿÿ€™m missing an obvious underlying concept here and that >> makes me nervous. > > VMWare gets quite unhappy when it can't talk to a DNS server. In most > Windows environments, the DCs are also the DNS servers, therefore > virtualizing *all* of your DCs, or rather, virtualizing them all on > the *same* DC, puts that VMWare host at risk. > > That's reason enough for me to keep one DC (probably the one with the > FSMO roles) on its own physical machine. > > Kurt > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
