Re: Fresh sbs install needed?
- From: "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:02:16 +1000
I am probably the most RABID proponent of 'you stuffed up and named your AD
DNS the same as your internet FQDN' however not even I would call it the
basis for a reinstall.
You should have named your AD DNS whatever.something_private, .lan is my
preference because Mac OS and some versions of Linux have started treating
..local (as advised by the installation wizard) in a special manner. There is
_no reason_ for your AD DNS name to reflect your public namespace.
I will go so far as to say that _IF THIS IS A NEW INSTALL AND YOU ARE NOT
YET TOO COMMITTED_ it is worth rectifying. With three attached ws's I'd
probably do it.
"Nick" <nickmirro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eqAaXH9mFHA.3336@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Our internet (Linux based) domain name matches our sbs server domain name.
> : - ( On the web we are: DomainName.net. The sbs server domain is
> called: DomainName.local. To access rww, shouldn't I have named the sbs
> domain: SubdomainName.DomainName.net?
>
> To get rww working do I need to completely reinstall sbs with naming as
> described?
>
>
> There are 3 machines added to the sbs domain by the web based utility.
> Should they be removed from (invalid?) domain? Will I be stuck with
> obsolete domain client logon options if I reinstall sbs?
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fresh sbs install needed?
- From: Gregg Hill
- Re: Fresh sbs install needed?
- References:
- Fresh sbs install needed?
- From: Nick
- Fresh sbs install needed?
- Prev by Date: Re: 2003 standard
- Next by Date: Re: Server fails to boot in all modes.
- Previous by thread: Fresh sbs install needed?
- Next by thread: Re: Fresh sbs install needed?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading