Tom, what revision of the server OS was the WINS server? NT 4.0? Did you ever determine if the WINS DB corruptions were being exposed at the app/WINS level (esentutl /g succeeds) or ESE level (esentutl /g fails)?
esentutl /g (the svc/DB must be offline for this) is the (slightly simplistic) method for determining if the corruption is exposing itself at the app logic level or the ESE level. Was the server being hard powered down (power outage)? Just curious. Cheers, -BrettSh [msft] - ESE Developer On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Tom Kern wrote: > I've had the reverse- > last place i worked at had corrupted WINS at least once every 2 months(this > could of been due to my lousy admin skills) > i've never had issues with dns(could be my dumb luck) > now i work for a corp that has netbios/tcp disabled and relies solely on > dns(both MS and BIND) with no name resolution issues. > also wins replication seems much more complex than standard > primary/secondary dns replication. > and i'm not one to think i know anything as an admin or would even think > of getting into such a disscussion with someone as experienced and > knowldgable as you, but i've always found dns easier than wins and netbios > names in general. > my only diffculty came with learning dns on BIND/Linux and just wrapping my > head around AD intergrated dns when i first came to Windows. > sometimes when you learn something via the command line, using the gui just > confuses things. > then again i'm probably one of those guys who "thinks" he knows dns but > really doesn't know anything and hasen't found out yet :( > what would you think would be a good replacement for dns/wins? > thanks > > On 10/8/05, joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I wasn't saying I like WINS better than DNS or vice versa, just said I > > don't like DNS. I especially dislike the AD/DNS integration. I don't like > > chicken and egg problems. > > BTW, as you bring up WINS. 1. I've never had a corrupted WINS Database. > > 2. Fewer admins had name resolution issues replication based issues with > > WINS than they do with DNS. 3. The complexity of DNS seems to put many > > admins off the deep end, interestingly enough, the same admins who said they > > couldn't figure out WINS say they know all about DNS. > > But again, my comment wasn't I like WINS more than DNS, or I like any > > name resolution systems better than DNS, it was simply I don't like DNS. > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Tom Kern > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:42 PM > > *To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > *Subject:* Re: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD > > > > ok, i'll bite. > > GPO's, i understand but whats there to hate about DNS? > > its better than WINS. > > I've never had a corrputed dns database. > > thanks > > > > On 10/8/05, joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, GPOs aren't AD. GPOs are an application that use AD. I hate GPOs. > > > DNS > > > too. > > > > > > :o) > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan > > > Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 11:19 AM > > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD > > > > > > Interesting question - and as to the 'implode point' for ESE/Jet Blue, > > > Brettsh can answer that one. I'm pretty sure that we have a good idea on > > > where the point of diminishing returns is, but it likely FAR exceeds > > > what > > > anyone might practically do today - even with added classes and > > > attributes. > > > > > > As for why ESE - it works, it is self maintaining to a great degree, > > > there > > > is very little overhead in the DB, and it is quite optimized to the type > > > of > > > work that is required for AD. Brettsh can certainly add more. > > > > > > I am one for preaching more svelte attitudes on your AD. As joe mentions > > > - > > > it's for authN purposes first and foremost. It CAN handle DNS, it does > > > GPO > > > (though - truth be told the majority of GPO function is but a link to an > > > attribute, while the actual GPO pieces reside in SYSVOL, so not much AD > > > - > > > lots of FRS), etc. > > > > > > App Parts make sense in some arenas where the amount of data is going to > > > be > > > very small and contained to just a few areas. I, too, like joe advocate > > > ADAM. I try to sell ADAM constantly as THE solution for most anything > > > that > > > doesn't have to do with authN. Customer AppDev wants to stuff new things > > > > > > into AD constantly. Partly, they don't know the down sides. Partly, they > > > think they have to learn something new. Partly, they don't really care > > > if > > > YOUR AD is affected by their decisions, as long as they deliver the > > > solution > > > in the timeframe specified. So, it's up to you, Mr. Admin and Mr. > > > Architect > > > to tell whoever wants to use your AD, no - we don't do it that way > > > because > > > it's very bad. We will use ADAM. Get used to it. > > > > > > Rick > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Mylo > > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 8:04 PM > > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD > > > > > > That's a good point about plonking stuff in AD.... a case of once a good > > > > > > thing comes along everyone wants to climb aboard. I remember doing > > > ZENworks > > > stuff with Novell where all the application configuration information > > > for > > > software distribution was shunted into NDS/E-Directory... all that bloat > > > > > > adds up replication-wise (still, at least there was partitioning). > > > > > > One thing I am curious about though is why MS opted for JET as the DB of > > > choice for AD.. was it the only viable option at the time ? What's the > > > ceiling on actual database size before it caves in (performance-wise)? > > > > > > Mylo > > > > > > joe wrote: > > > > > > >I am going to basically say what the other said only I am going to put > > > >it this way > > > > > > > >IF the data needs to be available at all locations or a majority of > > > >locations where your domain controllers are located, consider adding > > > >the data to AD. > > > > > > > >IF the data is going to be needed only at a couple of sites or a single > > > >site, put them into another store. My preference being AD/AM unless you > > > > > > >need to do some complicated joins or queries of the data that LDAP > > > >doesn't support. > > > > > > > >There is also the possibility of using app partitions but if you were > > > >going to go that far, just use AD/AM. > > > > > > > >The thing I have about sticking this data into AD is that AD is > > > >becoming, in many companies, a dumping ground of all the crap that was > > > >in all the other directories in the company. I realize this was the > > > >initial view from MS on how this should work but I worked in a large > > > >company and thought that was silly even then. > > > > > > > >The number one most important thing for AD is to authenticate Windows > > > users. > > > >Every time you dump more crap into AD you are working towards impacting > > > >that capability or the capability to quickly restore or the ability to > > > >quickly add more DCs. The more I see the one stop everything loaded > > > >into ADs the more I think that the NOS directory should be NOS only. > > > >Plus, I wonder how long before we hit some interesting object size > > > >limits. I have asked for details from some MS folks a couple of times > > > >on the issues with admin limit exceeded errors that you get when > > > >overpopulating a normal multivalue attribute (i.e. not linked) and it > > > >causing no other attributes to be added to the object. I wonder what > > > >other > > > limits like that exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joe > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Shaff > > > >Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 12:16 PM > > > >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > > >Subject: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD > > > > > > > >Group, > > > > > > > >My manager wanted me to check, even though, I don't think that it is > > > >possible, but, I will present the question. > > > > > > > >He would like to add some custom fields, about 30, to AD. He would > > > >like to add bio information into AD to be pulled by Sharepoint and > > > >other applications for people to read. I think that this is a waste of > > > >time, space and effort. However, it is not my call and if this is what > > > >he > > > wants.... > > > > > > > >What are everyone's thoughts on the topic? > > > > > > > >Thanks > > > >S > > > >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > > >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > > >List archive: > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > > >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > > >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > > >List archive: > > > >http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > > List archive: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > > List archive: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
