Re: AD Design Guru's
From: Chriss3 (noSpamHere_at_chrisse.se)
Date: 03/11/04
- Next message: Steve Elliott: "AD Bridgehead with DHCP won't mix"
- Previous message: Sluggo: "replicate Now"
- In reply to: Jason: "AD Design Guru's"
- Next in thread: Jason: "Re: AD Design Guru's"
- Reply: Jason: "Re: AD Design Guru's"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 01:40:51 +0100
Hi Jason, well I can start to say I'm understand you :) I need to know more
about your business I going list some information I need to come up with
some good deployment design for your Active Directory.
* The main question is may how integrated are there sites in each others
work, is there need for daily share of information accorss sites? (then a
child domain design with in a single forest may be a good design)
* How is Administration planned, Central or Decentralize? (Single Forest
simplify administration)
* What kind of Security Requiments are here? (Multiple Forest Design makes
each unit complete control over there site)
* What Requiments of the Active Directory Schema dose the sites have. (In a
Single forest all domains share a global Schema. This can also be a reason
for Multiple forest design.)
Upgrade and migration to Windows Server 2003. Here is much to planning also
if your organization planning to go to Windows Server 2003 directly of if
this is a process spanning for a long time. How ever since Domain Functional
Level can be set invudual to invudal domains within the forest existing
NT4.0 sites can be in mixed mode and upgraded slowly. May Windows 2000 Site
can be raised to Windows 2000 Native mode. Best integration and full
functional of all new features in Windows Server 2003 are required by
running Windows 2003 Domain Controllers, Make sure you planning this as well
ensure you understand all domain functional levels and forest functional
levels and the difference between them.
Deployment of Exchange 2003, here should my personally advice be to re-build
a new Exchange Organization across the particular forest. This can be a
reason for a single forest as you said, but more for administrative reasons
and integration. Today we can sync two GALS between multiple forests but
there is more to share within Exchange then a company wide address list.
Replication across multiple sites.
* Is there more than one office in each site your organization spanning
over?
* How many users do you have in each site?
* Do many users travel between sites?
(There is much good stuffs about AD Design out at microsoft.com but I going
move forward with this if you provide more information)
Have a nice day!
-- Regards Christoffer Andersson No email replies please - reply in the newsgroup "Jason" <jingram@dpconline.com> skrev i meddelandet news:eLtv0XvBEHA.2360@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Let me give a breif summary of whats happening, I need honest feedback on > this which is why I'm posting here. > > I'm an engineer in California(The main/largest location) and a member of a 5 > person engineering team. There are two other teams like mine at two other > locations (one in Europe, and on in New Jersey). > > Currently, two of the three sites are running NT 4.0 based Directory > Services(Los Angeles and New Jersey) and the third site is currently running > Windows 2000 based Active Directory(The engineer whom made the jump to AD > was fired for it, did it withoug managment approval and without talking to > any of the other IT teams..a cowboy if you will). We also have a single > Exchange Organization that has a single Exchange 5.5 server in each of the > sites(single gal and single email address domain for all three locations) > > This is where I come in. I was hired because my company didn't have anyone > with any signifigant design experience in AD in any shape. I was hired to > provide that experience and help with the forthcoming migration to Windows > 2003/Exchange 2003. My idea was to maintain the autonomy of the three sites > by using a seperate domain for each site in a single forest/single exchange > org. > > However, both of the remote IT teams want to use a Multiple Forest, Multiple > Exchange design. I'm open to that as long as it can be justified. I > usually work from a basic assumption of using a single forest starting out, > and then justifing using more than one. So far, I havn't seen the > justification. I'm not trying to get you to say "Your Right". I just want > to know your thoughts and if what you would lean towards. > > > Would you say that a Single Forest design is the best way to do it if > possible given the requirements for your business? > > I feel very frusrtated about this, but I'm trying to keep an open mine. I > just can't help but feel like there making a poor decision that will make > things more complicated and harder to handle in the future. But then > again...What do you think?? > > Any comments or feedback are very welcome. > >
- Next message: Steve Elliott: "AD Bridgehead with DHCP won't mix"
- Previous message: Sluggo: "replicate Now"
- In reply to: Jason: "AD Design Guru's"
- Next in thread: Jason: "Re: AD Design Guru's"
- Reply: Jason: "Re: AD Design Guru's"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
