Re: Making the case for not installing DC's on remote sites (2xT1 links)
From: ptwilliams (ptw2001_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/23/04
- Next message: Josh: "Re: Unable to prevent OU deletion by Domain Admins?"
- Previous message: Joe Kaplan \(MVP - ADSI\): "Re: sAMAccountName"
- In reply to: stuartm: "Re: Making the case for not installing DC's on remote sites (2xT1 links)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:58:24 -0000
This is a difficult argument, as we all have different opinions of large,
and there's always the bandwidth consideration factors. For me, I don't
consider 60 users large. I'd say that's a pretty small site. We have a
medium-large environment in my eyes, and we support around 2,000
servers -that's not including our internal infrastructure -that's another
25,000 users ;-) and I don't know how may servers -4,000 perhaps.
I've plonked a DC on a site with only 11 users, because the lines were poor
and we could afford it.
I've seen a DC/ Exchange server in a site with four users because two of
them were high up in the company and that's how the old environment was
setup.
Thought, network considerations and budget will rationalise your decision.
-- Paul Williams http://www.msresource.net http://forums.msresource.net "stuartm" <stuart.maxwell@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4PAod.7152$3U4.194574@news02.tsnz.net... In NZ, a site with over 60 users is considered 'large'! I would normally put a DC on any site with more than 20 users... :) on 23/11/2004 1:40 a.m. Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP] said the following: > I will chime in. Looks like this topic is pretty much dead but maybe we > will come up with something that was not considered initially! > > Marlon, I would consider having the local DC, especially if you have 'way > more than 60' computers/users in those Sites. I think that the logon > traffic ( that currently going across the WAN ) is only one point to > consider. Granted, it is usually the first and main point. But it is not > the only point. > > Where do the 'remote' users store their files? I can speak from > experience > that saving and retrieving files - especially larger one - over a T1 can > be > a frustrating process. Do all of your users save their documents to a > server in the 'HQ' right now? > > HTH, > > Cary > > > "Marlon Brown" <marlon_brown@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:uQNS7ODzEHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > >>Thanks. >>In our case the T1's are pretty reliable and users are allowed to logon >>using cached profiles to keep working locally until eventual T1 > > disruptions > >>are fixed. >> >>"ptwilliams" <ptw2001@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:elR5OkCzEHA.3360@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> >>>In cases whereby network traffic has been observed and the effect of > > logon > >>>traffic (the highest usually) is not overwhelming the link, the only > > good > >>>reason for a local (to the site) DC/ GC is exactly what Chris said - >>>redundancy in the event of a comms problem. >>> >>>However, cached credentials can work OK for simple file sharing > > operations > >>>(apparently, I've had mixed results). If you're happy with the cross > > WAN > >>>traffic then that could well be all the justification you need. >>> >>>Then again, if the budget for the DCs is there... >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Paul Williams >>> >>>http://www.msresource.net >>>http://forums.msresource.net >>> >>> >>>"Chriss3 [MVP]" <noSpamHere@chrisse.se> wrote in message >>>news:es2$HpAzEHA.804@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >>>Hello Marlon >>>You may also should thinking about disaster. what happens if the T1 > > lines > >>>breaks/failure. Note a GC is a DC that is marked for this role. there is >> >>no >> >>>need for an additional DC. >>> >>>-- >>>Regards >>>Christoffer Andersson >>>Microsoft MVP - Directory Services >>> >>>No email replies please - reply in the newsgroup >>>------------------------------------------------ >>>http://www.chrisse.se - Active Directory Tips >>> >>>"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brown@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet >>>news:Ok6fAp$yEHA.2752@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... >>> >>>>I put DC+GC on 5 remote sites where I have more than 200 > > computers/branch > >>>>office. >>>> >>>>I have a total of 15 remaining sites with less than 130 computers/site >> >>and >> >>>>I >>>>preferred not to put the DC+GC's there, that way I minimize the >> >>management >> >>>>overhead associated with the administration of additional DC's. >>>> >>>>I observe the T1's usage (we have two T1's connected from remote > > sites > >>to >> >>>>main office;one T1 is dedicated for data and one for data/voice) and >> >>they >> >>>>are very low; at peak time, in the morning when people logs on between >>>>8:30AM-9:00AM, in most sites the T1 usage barely goes above 15% o(in > > the > >>>>worst case scenario it reaches maximum of 400KB/s). Client logon in > > the > >>>>main >>>>office is < 40 seconds, approximately the same time it is taking for >>>>people >>>>to logon from branch offices where I have no DC+GC there. >>>> >>>>I read documents where MS recommended the installation of DC's on > > branch > >>>>offices with more than 60 computers. >>>> >>>>In my case, in some sites I have way much more than 60 machines and I >>>>would >>>>like to know if you agree that I can take advantage of T1's and > > continue > >>>>with this design, I mean, let the computers in the branch offices >>>>authenticate to the 4 DC's in the main site. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >
- Next message: Josh: "Re: Unable to prevent OU deletion by Domain Admins?"
- Previous message: Joe Kaplan \(MVP - ADSI\): "Re: sAMAccountName"
- In reply to: stuartm: "Re: Making the case for not installing DC's on remote sites (2xT1 links)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
