PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Turin, Vladimir
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 4:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
Only reference to Universal Groups in the thread made by me and looks
like I didn't make myself clear enough. What I attempted to say
Message-
From: Jorge de Almeida Pinto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Montag, 2. Februar 2004 10:10
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
Hi Guido,
I have not tested what you mention.
In the example I used I know which objects are the poltergeists and
therefore I also know
domain (which only has an
outbound replication agreement to this GC for this NC...). We'll see.
/Guido
-Original Message-
From: joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Dienstag, 3. Februar 2004 06:29
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
Heh.
This is getting very
:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; AD mailing list (Send)
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
FWIW - If I am not mistaken, the KCC removal rate of objects in the GC
is actually 500 under Windows 2000. However, I believe that SP4 for
Windows 2000 also provides the rapid removal of GC objects
all DCs back to GC. This is not nice, but I
think the only solution!
Jorge
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eljin B. Brown
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 10:41
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
Tony
] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 02:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'AD mailing list (Send)'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
DEAN!
You rock dude, I love your posts.
I like the little /kcc thing below... I had no idea.
joe
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of GRILLENMEIER,GUIDO
(HP-Germany,ex1)
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 09:39
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
Jorge,
are all of these stale objects in the same (or few) OU(s)? If so, I wonder
what would happen, when you now delete these empty
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Wells
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 3:03 PM
To: AD mailing list (Send)
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
I have a former student (a PSS tech.) looking into the very same thing
and
received a voicemail/email last night outlining
: Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
I did some tests and looks like method #2 (removelingeringobject)
won't work in described case. Apparently MS guys are checking that
object is not just lingering - it has to be also created more than
: Thursday, January 29, 2004 9:55 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of
GC
Oh what an interesting scenario
You are an evil person.
The fact that you don't have references to the objects in
the main domain means they will never automatically get updated since that is
all
Of joe
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 9:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
Oh what an interesting scenario
You are an evil person.
The fact that you don't have references to the objects in the main domain
means they will never automatically get updated
only section and then delete them.
joe
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 3:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
Ouch, that looks nasty. What's funny
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 12:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
Nod. Highly recommend a solution of equal parts perl and adfind. Adfind to
well, find, and perl to control flow
-Original Message-
Wrom: QWOYIYZUNNYCGPKYLEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGM
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 12:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
Nod. Highly recommend a solution of equal parts perl and adfind. Adfind to
well, find, and perl
--
Dean Wells
MSEtechnology
* Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://msetechnology.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 7:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
Eljin
A quicker
Of Dean Wells
Sent: Freitag, 30. Januar 2004 19:06
To: AD mailing list (Send)
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
As already pointed out, Jorge is suffering from a read-only lingering object
issue. Deletion of such objects in 2000 remains a painful process but is
now feasible (earlier versions
MSEtechnology
* Tel: +1 (954) 501-4307
* Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://msetechnology.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 2:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
.
HTH
Deano
--
Dean Wells
MSEtechnology
* Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://msetechnology.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 7:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
.
HTH
Deano
--
Dean Wells
MSEtechnology
* Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://msetechnology.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 7:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 2:28 PM
To: AD mailing list (Send)
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC (straying slightly OT)
I'm not aware of the motivation behind this decision. It may simply be that
they didn't want to empty the partition content (a time consuming process as
we know
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 2:28 PM
To: AD mailing list (Send)
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC (straying slightly OT)
I'm not aware of the motivation behind this decision. It may simply be that
they didn't want to empty the partition content (a time consuming process as
we know
Title: Message
Have
you tried performing an authoritative restore of DOM_B using a backup from
T3? That should restore all objects to the domain and still keep the GCs
in sync.
Kenneth W. (Ken) Adams, MCSA, MCSE
-Original Message-From: Jorge de Almeida Pinto
[mailto:[EMAIL
!
Regards,
JORGE
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adams, Kenneth W
(Ken)Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 14:06To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of
GC
Have
you tried performing an authoritative restore of DOM_B using a backup from
T3? That shou
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-From: Jorge de Almeida
Pinto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday,
January 29, 2004 8:17 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of
GC
Hi,
This may seem strange, but the restore
of the "lost ob
they were never tombstoned (deleted) in the domain
partition.
Regards,
Jorge
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger
SeielstadSent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 14:22To:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of
GC
Then
what you need to do is perform
.
--
Roger D. Seielstad -
MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-From: Jorge de Almeida
Pinto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday,
January 29, 2004 8:33 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of
GC
SeielstadSent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 14:50To:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of
GC
Because they'll have the same GUID, they're really the same object. Since
they have higher USNs due to the authoritative restore, they'll be updated with
the information from the restore
, January 29, 2004 16:10To:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of
GC
You're right - I was missing that. Can you do an
auth restore of the parent (such as an OU)? Not sure if that would do it or not,
however.
It
seems like the issue is what type of garbage/orphan collection
, 2004 8:32 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of
GC
I tested the situation I
described earlier (see below) and the findings are as
expected:
I restored DOM_B using the
backup without the 1 objects.
Everything is in sync
again.
When I do an AD search (in DOM_A
or DOM_C
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-From: Jorge de Almeida
Pinto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday,
January 29, 2004 11:32 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of
GC
I tested the situation I
described earlier (see below) and the findings
and database maintenance procedures
in AD?
-Stuart Fuller
State of Montana
From: Jorge de Almeida Pinto
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January
29, 2004 9:32 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
I tested the situation I
described earlier (see below
etter than the search engine for Microsoft
Premier support.
-Stuart
From: Fuller, Stuart
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 10:20
AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE:
[ActiveDir] Contents of GC
THE FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENT IS AN EXAMPLE: * 1 forest with 3 domains (W2K Na
Collection process
Jorge
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: 1/29/2004 6:20 PM
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of GC
THE FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENT IS AN EXAMPLE:
* 1 forest with 3 domains (W2K Native Mode)
* DOM_A is forest root
* DOM_B
:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of
GC
You
restored the entire domain, but didn't mark it authoritative,
correct?
I
wonder if that would have made a difference - again, its just a
stab.
--
Roger D. Seielstad -
MTS
Of Fuller,
StuartSent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:46 PMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of
GC
Found an article on the Garbage collection interval
-see "The Active Directory Database Garbage Collection Process" http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en
ED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Contents of
GC
This is just a guess, but since this is Win2K, I wonder if
forcing a full synchronization of all GCs by adding a new attribute to the PAS
would clear this up?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jorge de Almeida
PintoSent
36 matches
Mail list logo
