Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs
From: Herb Martin (news_at_LearnQuick.com)
Date: 11/22/04
- Next message: Brian Desmond [MVP]: "Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs"
- Previous message: Kevsh: "Interactive login message"
- In reply to: ptwilliams: "Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs"
- Next in thread: Brian Desmond [MVP]: "Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:52:36 -0600
The problem with SMTP is that both clients and servers much
use the feature (servers register, clients resolve) so that only
someone like MS with leadership on both sides can initiate
this.
It's actually a pretty trivial change to both client and server.
-- Herb Martin "ptwilliams" <ptw2001@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Om6397N0EHA.1188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > > 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: Brian Desmond [MVP]: "Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs"
- Previous message: Kevsh: "Interactive login message"
- In reply to: ptwilliams: "Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs"
- Next in thread: Brian Desmond [MVP]: "Re: Multiple Sites and Multiple DCs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
