Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs
From: ptwilliams (ptw2001_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/22/04
- Next message: ptwilliams: "Re: How to hide or disbale "Log on to" option"
- Previous message: Terry: "DNS won't load my local zone due to AD problem"
- In reply to: Herb Martin: "Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs"
- Next in thread: Herb Martin: "Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs"
- Reply: Herb Martin: "Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:02:31 -0000
> My vote is for SMTP services that registers themself by site and a change
> to Outlook and OE, etc, that would make the SMTP clients SITE-AWARE of
> their nearest SMTP server.
Imagine how big a value this would be to both distributed companies and
those who frequently use a different ISP
while traveling....
Yes, I can see the benefits and possibilities with this. It is a good idea,
and one that hopefully MS are working on...
I'm surprised as to how few actual apps use sites as of yet. I would have
thought more developers would have utilised this feature - as there could be
many benefits to gain from this...
-- Paul Williams http://www.msresource.net http://forums.msresource.net "Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message news:OM0$KeN0EHA.752@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... "ptwilliams" <ptw2001@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ecCSS5M0EHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Yes from a replication perspective it's irrelevant, but the DNS Locator > algorithm uses site link costs when ascertaining the closest site. > Therefore, in a scenario with a DC-less site with two site links the lowest > cost link would be used for authentication. Thus, you can semi-force > clients at DC-less sites to use DCs at specific sites. Yes, that was one of the reason I indicated but you can also do this by including the DC-less location in that nearest site (the one the clients should use.) > I would assume, although we've not upgraded yet so can't be sure, that > AD-Integrated SMS 2003 would make a lot of use of DC-less sites, especially > if they have member servers that can be used for the 2003-equivalent of CAPs > and DPs. I too understand that SMS 2003 does (may?) include a feature/option to use the AD sites so that would make a third service which respects or uses sites: AD-DCs, DFS, and SMS. > I would also go as far to say that as more and more software becomes > AD-aware, we'll have more reasons for defining sites - for the publication > of directory services services, and thus traffic localisation, etc. One can hope. My vote is for SMTP services that registers themself by site and a change to Outlook and OE, etc, that would make the SMTP clients SITE-AWARE of their nearest SMTP server. Imagine how big a value this would be to both distributed companies and those who frequently use a different ISP while traveling.... -- Herb Martin > > > -- > > Paul Williams > > http://www.msresource.net > http://forums.msresource.net > > > "Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message > news:OS9u3%23F0EHA.2192@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > > > > "stuartm" <stuart.maxwell@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:9Naod.6997$3U4.183131@news02.tsnz.net... > > Thanks Brian - that makes sense. > > Actually the value of a DC-less site to define costs is pretty > doubtful -- since all the KCCs-DCs in the actual sites will > just use the lowest costs anyway and this site will be irrelevant > to replication except for the sum of the costs -- one might as > well just put in the direct Site Link with the sum. > > [An exeption might exist for a central-hub site with no DCs > that is connected to many other sites, but that is a case where > it is very unlikely the location would be without DCs by > design.] > > The main reason for creating Sites is to control DC replication. > > (Or other servers that use sites -- right now, I think that is only > DFS in addition to AD.) > > The seconary reason is to control which DCs (nearest) sites > will be preferred by the clients when connnecting to a DC > off site -- here the costs do matter, since the clients will prefer > the "closest" site DCs (least cost.) > > An alternative if the network configuration is simple is to > just include the DC-location in the "nearest" site. > > A third reason for creating such sites is if you intend to add the > DCs (sooner or later.) > > There is nothing really wrong with creating such sites for SMALL > networks, but as the number of sites grows (dozens to hundreds) > you are causing more work for the KCC in most cases (there are > other ways to reduce this and it's not quite so bad in Win2003.) > > Somewhere around 300 sites represents a practical maximum for > Win2000 domains/forests unless you take special care with > Site Link Bridging or some such trick. > > FYI: A Site Link Bridge is somewhat misnamed and will better > be thought of as a "Site Link GROUP", since the practical effect of > these is to "Group siteslinks into a transitive group", and to separate > them -- i.e., non-transitive -- from other Sites not in the same > Site Link Bridge-Group. > > -- > Herb Martin > > > > > > . > > > > Brian Desmond [MVP] wrote: > > > I''m not Cary but I'm going to chime in anyway: > > > > > > > > > > > >>Cary, > > >> > > >>Would you create an AD site for each physical site, including the ones > > >>that don't have domain controllers? I would normally only create an AD > > >>site for a physical site if there is a domain controller present. I > > >>would then link the subnets for the physical sites to the closest AD > site. > > >> > > >>I can't see the benefit of having an AD site if there is no domain > > >>controller present?? > > >> > > >>Your thoughts..? > > > > > > > > > You may wish to create a site even if a DC is not present. Since you can > > > define site linsk between this site and other sites with difering costs, > > > clients in this site without a DC will attempt to find the least cost > path > > > to a DC. If for example your network topology/routing allows clients at > a > > > site with no DCs to only connect to another site, then putting the > subnet in > > > the site which the remote site is connected to makes just as much sense. > > > > > >
- Next message: ptwilliams: "Re: How to hide or disbale "Log on to" option"
- Previous message: Terry: "DNS won't load my local zone due to AD problem"
- In reply to: Herb Martin: "Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs"
- Next in thread: Herb Martin: "Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs"
- Reply: Herb Martin: "Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
