Don't mean to call you out, Joe, but ...... Didn't you use to run the PDC for that Widget factory on a very small (no, itsy-bitsy) hardware? And didn't you explain at that time that there was no sense in putting it on one of the beefy Dells we were purchasing around that time? And didn't run seamlessly and adequately (discounting the WINS gyrations)? I'd think you'd be a champion for the "don't need an enterprise hardware for such mundane task" crowd :). I personally have to also second Ed's opinion on this - it's better to have a second DC even on crappy hardware than it is to have none at all because of budget constraints. Sincerely,
Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.readymaids.com - we know IT www.akomolafe.com Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of joe Sent: Wed 11/9/2005 8:02 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Improving your AD's fault tolerance with old hardware? Even outside of Exchange I think it depends on how fast the box actually is and how hard you hit AD. For a box in the closet to offer a get out of jail because everything else fails... Ok. But I would be concerned that other machines you don't think of normally as much as you think of Exchange could find the DC and start using it and get suboptimal perf from it. joe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Murray Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:08 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Improving your AD's fault tolerance with old hardware? I'd go along with Ed here. I can't see too much risk with this approach. I wouldn't assign any of the FSMO roles to the old hardware DC, simply because of the hassle in seizing the roles elsewhere in the event of a severe hardware failure. No problem with making the DC as GC though. Another option to consider is setting up a lag site with the old hardware DC. This can be useful for some recovery scenarios as well as the safe introduction of schema changes. Search the list archive for recent posts on the lag site concept. It is important to ensure that whatever hardware you use is sufficient for the task. There are published minimum requirements for Windows Server 2003, but you should also determine what is the minimum required for your own environment. A scenario I have in mind is if you have Exchange 2003 running in your environment you perhaps don't want it to be using an old DC/GC that's running like a dog. :-) Tony -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2005 2:59 p.m. To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Improving your AD's fault tolerance with old hardware? I remember back in the days of our old 3500-user NT 4.0 domain, back when I ran an administration group. We had a nice ProLiant server that was a 486. We only had one of those. But because it was manageable through Insight Agents, we decided to keep it and made it our PDC, since it wasn't terribly useful for anything else. We figured that if it were to die, we'd just junk it and promote another server. It never did die while I was there, and it performed fine. So, although the hardware sales guys at my current employer would crucify me for saying this, I can't disagree with your approach. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:50 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] Improving your AD's fault tolerance with old hardware? Correct me if I am wrong, but assuming the more DC's you have in your forest, the more fault tolerant your Active Directory will become, is it therefore worth it to use retired, possibly out of (hardware) warranty servers or workstations for this purpose if you are budget-less (to purchase new servers)? In this case, I am referring to orgs with 20-200 AD users. How about GC's and other related AD roles and critical software based services? Same deal? Thank you, ...D 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/
