Tom, what revision of the server OS was the WINS server? NT 4.0? Did you
ever determine if the WINS DB corruptions were being exposed at the
app/WINS level (esentutl /g succeeds) or ESE level (esentutl /g fails)?
esentutl /g (the svc/DB must be offline for this) is the (slightly
simplistic)
Yur just a problem child.
-r
--
Posting is provided AS IS, and confers no rights or warranties ...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 10:40 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir]
"what would you think would be a good
replacement for dns/wins?"
There currently isn't one. Not really even a
viable option on the table. joe doesn't like DNS. The rest of the
planet loves DNS- including those eggheads (loveable eggheads that they
are) at IETF are the holders of the
So for those organizations that have exchange deployed... how do you
make the argument to shove things into adam? Exchange would have been
the perfect application to shove into adam.
:m:dsm:cci:mvp marcusoh.blogspot.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Title: Schema Updates
Hmmm. I need to think about that again. I
think I only saw this behavior in the lab where all the servers were upgraded
instead of wipe and replace. In production, we upgraded initially then did a
replacement effort later.
More to the point, UGH Cisco Unity I
wish
I agree with you that WINS has largely had a bad rap.
Every WINS problem I've seen has been poor architecture or administrative
practices.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVPFreelance E-Mail
PhilosopherProtecting the world from PSTs and Bricked
Backups!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
I would guess that it never got that far. My experience with folks
troubleshooting WINS is that they don't look very deep, someone can't
resolve XYZ server name and they stop the service, delete the DB, and
repopulate and call the DB corrupt.
I think I said this in another post but I have never
I don't think the rest of the planet loves DNS, I think a
lot of people put up with it as a necessary evil due to exactly the reason you
state. There isn't even a viable option on the table. WINS simply won't scale
due to the lack of hierarchy. I myself also realize that it is a necessary
Absolutely perfect, at least for some of the data such as the config info. I
personally also think the user data could be there too with links back to
the AD principals but many would argue against that. An issue with ADAM
though is that it doesn't implement all of the interfaces needed for
Ah Brett, you incorrigible one, you misunderstand my point of posting those
numbers It wasn't to say, look how big I have seen, but instead, look
how big these companies are and they still have small DBs. When I hear of
some giant DB I don't think wow, what a big DB, I think, what kind of sh*t
I am not certain I would like to use hosts, but I do think it would be nice
if I could put in SRV records into hosts files IF I wanted to use them. I
know having the LMHOSTS file as a backup to WINS always gave me a warm fuzzy
feeling even if I wasn't having WINS issues. It can be a pain to
Tuppence follows ... although I don't represent anything like the rest of
the planet, FWIW I do indeed very much like DNS (love is perhaps a tad
overboard).
--Dean WellsMSEtechnology* Email: dwells@msetechnology.comhttp://msetechnology.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cough
I love DNS and AD and argue strongly for the glue all the time.
{example answer in SBS newsgroup to person not wanting a
domain."why in the WORLD do you want to run as workgroup? A domain
is just a workgroup with more toys!"}
But then again I run insecure SBS where our wizards set
In the NT 3.50 days, WINS was a mess. I'm sorry but no amount of good
design would help it. It just sucked. It got progressively better in NT
4.0 but I saw lots of corruptions of many kinds in 3.5x and I knew a
thing or two about WINS.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is entirely believable (about WINS being a mess). JET Blue used to
suck. In Win2k, finally the older JET Blue 200 / 400 series was replaced
by the version (ESE97) that underwent the top-to-bottom rewrite during
Exch 5.5.
That is why I asked if it was a 4.0 NT server. I'm not interested in
Someone told me offline, they think I'm wrong about WINS not being in
3.50. Hmmm, was it DHCP that didn't exist til 3.51? Maybe RPL? Maybe
WINS just wasn't JET Blue based until then? H, now I'm all curious.
Cheers,
-BrettSh [msft]
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Brett Shirley wrote:
That is
Yes, I was hoping you wouldn't take it has who has a bigger database
contest, that was not my intent. Besides it was really who has seen the
bigger database, and who wants to admit that, you want to HAVE the bigger
database. My databases aren't really that big, usually a smidgen over the
default
17 matches
Mail list logo
