Re: active directory replication
- From: "Herb Martin" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:02:35 -0600
"rodge" <rodge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5FF70C8C-7F3F-48AE-9052-C76F04A13EB4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> We are using a mix of windows 2000 and 2003 servers for domain
> controllers.
> We have 25 remote sites on a fully meshed network. I am hearing complaints
> about slowness throughout the day from all remote sites.
Reports "about slowness" are seldom a reason to take
drastic action, BUT they are a reason for investigation
perhaps....
> I have been able to
> determine that this is being caused by replication.
How? When? What are the actual symptoms?
What do your sites and SITE LINKS look like?
> I believe I have 2
> solutions, but want to make sure of any issues before I attempt to
> implement.
> The way our sites were set up has 25 sites in sites and services. I
> believe
> it may be more advantageous to combine some of the sites into regions and
> appoint ip bridgehead servers for the new sites(regions).
On the face of it, neither of these changes will change the
AMOUNT of replication to each site. Certainly not "picking"
the bridgehead server which will just make the replication
less reliable, although it MIGHT reduce the load on THAT
bridgehead DC (but this only makes sense if you are doing a
LOT of replication.)
> This should cut down on a great deal of traffic.
Why and how do you think this will happen?
> Currently all sites do not have equal
> bandwidths, but by year end, all sites will have 512 connectivity to the
> main
> office. Does this sound like a valid solution?
No, since you didn't describe the network except to say "full mesh"
which IMPLIES that all sites have the same bandwidth to each
other but doesn't really state that.
What do your SITE LINKS look like? (Which Sites and
Cost, Schedule, Frequency?)
In general, you site links should follow your PHYSICAL
connections, and use only your "best" physical connections
OR use costs to PREFER those "best" WANS.
How many users/computers do you have? How much
(available) bandwidth?
If you aren't changing a LOT of users, why is replication
hurting you?
Are you using DFS (across the WANS)?
> Also, I noticed in reading
> that it is common to have scheduled replication during non-peak hours.
THAT might make more sense if you truly have a replication
problem...
> We
> have very little activity at night, so I was wondering what sort of issues
> I
> would run into if I scheduled replication to occur only at night?
Delays when you create new accounts (computers and users), or
the (increased) need to 'reach across the WAN when resetting
remote user passwords etc.'.
(That is, delays in replication will mean that such changes don't
immediately propagate from wherever they are done to where
they may be needed.)
> I am also not sure how to go about this.
This implies you don't have a strong grasp of SiteLinks and
replication so first tell us about your Site and ESPECIALLY
your Subnets, SiteLinks including your Costs, Schedule, and
Frequency settings.
You should also run DCDiag on each DC (and capture the
output to a test file where you search for FAIL, WARN,
and ERROR.)
Correct or report here all problems you find with DCDiag.
IF you have setup your Sites and Site Links correctly then
most replication issues are DNS based.
--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
Accelerated MCSE
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
[phone number on web site]
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: active directory replication
- From: rodge
- Re: active directory replication
- Prev by Date: Local Accounts on Domain Controllers
- Next by Date: Re: user accounts
- Previous by thread: Local Accounts on Domain Controllers
- Next by thread: Re: active directory replication
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
