Re: DC, not a GC
- From: technion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 24 May 2005 02:03:32 -0700
Hi Jimmy,
I've been presented with another series of reasons that you would want
your domain controller to be a GC.
This brings me back to the issue of, is it not better to make every DC
a GC?
I'm struggling to comprehend the information below, in context of
recommendations I see around the place, along the lines of "three DC's,
two are a GC". What is the point of that third DC, which is not a GC?
Jimmy Andersson [MVP] wrote:
> If you want to search the whole forest you need the GC function
(3268), or
> if you have applications that specifically use port 3268 there are
loads of
> other reasons as well for instance performance etc.... You can find
more
> info here:
> http://tinyurl.com/75yyq
>
> Regards,
> /Jimmy
> --
> Jimmy Andersson, Q Advice AB
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> ---------- www.qadvice.com ----------
>
>
> <technion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1116567273.499887.145810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Hey,
> >
> > I have done some reading about AD and the like, and I'm fairly sure
I
> > get what a Domain Controller does, and what a Global Catalogue
server
> > does.
> >
> > I am aware that in general you need a GC at each site. What then,
if
> > the point (if any) of having a DC which is NOT a GC?
> > There seems to be such a hoo-haa about picking the right machines
for
> > your GC(s), and I'm curious why you would promote a server at all,
if
> > it was not going to fulfil this function?
> >
> > Any advice appreciated.
> >
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: DC, not a GC
- From: Jimmy Andersson [MVP]
- Re: DC, not a GC
- References:
- DC, not a GC
- From: technion
- Re: DC, not a GC
- From: Jimmy Andersson [MVP]
- DC, not a GC
- Prev by Date: DHCP in ADS
- Next by Date: Re: LDIFDE - Add Auxiliary Class - Unwilling to Perform
- Previous by thread: Re: DC, not a GC
- Next by thread: Re: DC, not a GC
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
