Re: A.D. Replication through vpn tunneling
From: Doug Sherman [MVP] (dsherman_at_nospam.tampabay.rr.com)
Date: 05/25/04
- Next message: Phillip Windell: "Re: DHCP Server"
- Previous message: Thomas: "Time Synchronization through Router"
- In reply to: janet: "A.D. Replication through vpn tunneling"
- Next in thread: Phillip Windell: "Re: A.D. Replication through vpn tunneling"
- Reply: Phillip Windell: "Re: A.D. Replication through vpn tunneling"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 17:13:47 -0400
I'm inclined to agree with Phillip, at least for multiple sites - but here
you only have 2. The issue is generally more one of bandwidth rather than
latency, and a T1 or 512K connection is more than adequate to support normal
replication between 2 servers. Ultimately, your question is impossible to
answer without knowing a lot more about total traffic demands on your VPN
links. If you are using RRAS for VPN, consider switching to harware.
Hardware VPN has come way down in price and generally provides better
performance. I know of several networks where a single forrest/domain
replicates fine over VPN links to multiple sites. If replication demand
becomes an issue, you can controll it with Site links - See:
Doug Sherman
MCSE Win2k/NT4.0, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP
"janet" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1235701c44293$1891ca90$a401280a@phx.gbl...
> If we are seeing ping times through our vpn tunnel of 250
> to 300 (we
> are on a T1 and the other site is 512Kbs), would active
> directory
> replications between these locations be adequate?
>
- Next message: Phillip Windell: "Re: DHCP Server"
- Previous message: Thomas: "Time Synchronization through Router"
- In reply to: janet: "A.D. Replication through vpn tunneling"
- Next in thread: Phillip Windell: "Re: A.D. Replication through vpn tunneling"
- Reply: Phillip Windell: "Re: A.D. Replication through vpn tunneling"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|