Pete,
Welcome! I agree with your observations - Especially that planning is way
down the priority list of a W2K project. It seems this is a hangover from
the NT4 days with the existing skills out there thinking AD is a domain on
steriods.... Nice thought although the reality is quite different.
>From the clients I have sat in front of I have pointed them two ways;
Get the design and planning done now with a route to rolling out the core AD
DS backbone. Switching on all the bells and whistles of AD / W2K can come
later. ie. Let's make sure the foundations and enabling infrastructure are
rock solid before hitting the really sweet spots
If they have a global DS such as NDS then leave it in place and let AD
mature alittle before ripping out a perfectly good product that's already
doing the job!
Most of the reasoning behind this statement comes from the scalability of
certain AD processes - the KCC being one, GC another and missing
functionality in the administration arena.
With regards to what the average domain looks like - depends very much on
the size of the organisation and WAN infrastructure, yet I have seen the NT4
type approach of resource domains being hooked up to a master, domain per
country and the famous one domain will do everything efforts.
Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter A. Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:29 AM
Subject: [ActiveDir] Active Directory - Visions from the field
Hello,
I just joined the list, so I will start with saying hello. The reason for
the post is I am curious what others are seeing in the field as far as
planning, and design. I'm getting the overall feeling for small to mid-size
companies that they are avoiding the AD concept as long as they can. The
majority of clients I have been seen are all talking about active directory
but when the topic of really converting to it comes up, they run for the
hills. I've also seen a number of sloppy attempts at planning for AD. I
think one of the bigger misconceptions in the field is that AD planning
doesn't have to be taken as seriously as touted.
With NT 4.0, it was told that you must plan your domain's. The single,
master, muli-master and complete trust was always a favorite interview
question, right up there with what are the seven layers of the ISO model.
With Windows NT 4.0 you could do a poor job of planning a domain, and many
people got by with their mess. Many of these same companies are still in
that mess and if they were to start migrating today, it would be a disaster.
I also see the "Yes Active Directory, Its Great!, Blah Blah Blah". When the
topic of planning and steps taken comes up, I get a half baked answer and
they change the subject, "Look A Moose!" Then in the next couple of breaths,
"Were going to Exchange 2000, were planning it now, its going to be great.
>From my experience of seeing half a** attempts at 4.0 domains, I can just
imagine what its going to look like with Active directory.
Perhaps this is just what I'm seeing, I would like to see what others see.
With all the hype removed, what are others honest opinion on where the AD
conversions are going and what the average domain looks like.
Pete Solomon
List info: http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info: http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
