That makes more sense - AD is resilient by its distributed design whereas Exch is not (or less so) due to its non-distributed design.
A database 'corruption' in AD simply means we re-build the affected DC (since the corruption will not be replicated (we hope)) whereas in Exch, the same corruption means a lack of service and thus a much higher impact. Apologies for pursuing this to the nth degree - I was surprised to hear of a OS/ESE change which was clearly put in place to fix issues caused by dodgy hardware :) Brett alluded to memory bit flipping issues - will ESE be changed to cater for those issues, as well as disk related issues??? :) neil -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick Sent: 08 December 2005 13:55 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption Right. Different purposes for the technology dictate different answers. A one-bit flip can happen from all sorts of things. We don't tend to notice it very much with newer hardware because a lot of it gets checked, scrubbed and then checked and scrubbed some more as it passes between subsystems. Everything from memory to disk subsystems check and recheck for integrity. It's not infallable however. It's also not impervious to administrative error in terms of misconfiguration or other items that can cause issues (faulty hardware happens.) AD is a distributed "fabric" made up of layers (that last bit is for Brett) and if thought of that way, you can withstand a hole in the fabric but still provide the service. Exchange is more personal in that it has a one to one relationship with the end user it provides service for. As such, if there's a "hole" in it, it cannot provide the service it's intended to provide. I don't see this fix as hurting AD either, but I don't see it as being nearly as important because I can just replace the faulty hardware in most environments that follow the best practice of deploying more than one AD DC per domain. It's designed to do operate that way and withstand failures under normal circumstances. Exchange is not as resilient by task. My $0.04 anyway. >From: "Michael B. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >To: <ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption >Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:10:17 -0500 > >The existing mechanism place in Exchange 2003 prior to sp1 was able to >detect problems, and ensure that they didn't cause problems in the >Exchange environment -- however that could mean that a store was shut >down when a -1018 was detected. And that's a real problem to the user >environment! > >Correcting a single bit error (which can be caused by hardware failure, >firmware failure, cosmic rays, or mind control (I'm sure)) allows the >store to continue operating about 40% (a significant number) of the >time. This results in a noticable reduction of support calls to PSS. >:-) > >I've got notes around here somewhere, but my memory vaguely says that >the change was to take the physical page number 32-bit value in the >database record header and turn it into an ECC value. The database is >updated, record by record, as each record gets updated. > >Could such a change benefit A/D? I don't see why not. It's probably not >as dramatic an improvement though -- the reaction of Exchange to a >one-bit error was to shut down the entire store. A/D apparently just >fails the current request. Depending on the request, that could be a >big deal - or not. > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:38 AM >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption > >I was referring to this KB: >http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=867626 > > >neil > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, >CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] >Sent: 08 December 2005 09:28 >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption > >I thought it was Windows 2003 sp1 that had additional database >correction stuff? > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Maybe I should flip the question around a little... > > > > > >What are the changes made in exch2k3 sp1 (involving ECC corrections) > >and why were they deemed necessary, given what I have read from > >joe/Brett/Eric et al)?? > > > >The changes appear to be superfluous. We do not appear to need such a > >(further) check re: AD/ESE(?) > > > >What am I missing guys? > > > >neil > >PS Great thread so far :) > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe > >Sent: 07 December 2005 01:55 > >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption > > > >Good post ~Eric, thanks for chiming in. > > > >I see where you are coming from with the corruption at the > >distributed level. In terms of corruption at that level I see it as > >corruption but just can't get myself to see it as AD corruption. I am > >not sure if I can put it down in words why. I just don't. :) > > > > joe > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric > >Fleischman > >Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 5:42 PM > >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption > > > ><snip> > >I would generally not call USN rollback a corruption either, but I > >think Dean make a fair and quasi-valid point that if you consider the > >distributed system, yes such a thing is a corruption. Feel free to > >shim in a "AD Distributed System Logical Layer" in the above stack, > >between AD Logical Layer and App Logical Layer. I'm waffling on this > >point though, as somethign smells differnent that other types of >corruption. > >I'm going to think about that for a long time ... in fact Eric yes > >the > >~Eric) is at my door and says he would consider it corruption, so > >there > > >is a long debate in my future as well ... > ></snip> > > > >Over lunch, Brett and I discussed this some more. My contention is > >that > > >USN rollback would be a form of corruption under a somewhat broad > >definition. > >The reality is that there is a layer that Brett mentioned which > >actually has a two parts when looked at from a high level. Namely, > >this >layer: > > > > > >>AD Logical Layer > >> > >> > > > >The first piece could be thought of as local logical layer. That is, > >data hierarchy, conforming to the code assumptions of how it should > >be, > > >data conforming to the schema as defined, etc. This is a layer of > >data that clearly need be proper (leaving the definition of proper to > >another day), else we are in some sort of corrupt state. Brett and I > >both agree on this I'm pretty sure. > > > >However, there is then distributed systems corruption. In AD, one of > >the services we aim to provide is convergence. If we do not converge, > >we define this divergence as at a minimum "bad", perhaps "corrupt." > >USN rollback breaks our convergence guarantees, it breaks replication > >such that you will not attain convergence in the system. I would as > >such consider it a form of corruption. > > > >Over Teriyaki a few minutes ago, Brett posited the question "well if > >USN rollback is corruption, what else?" Valid question. I would > >concede > > >that if USN rollback is considered distributed systems corruption, so > >too would be other conditions which yield divergence. Perhaps this is > >a > > >slippery slope that goes too far. I need to think about this some more. > > > >I would also toss out there that corruption should not be confused > >with > > >"forever broken." There are many states in which the directory can > >exist where it is functional, but in some way broken. Such > >divergences can typically be repaired with administrative action, so > >long as it is a savvy administrator. :) If we are willing to assume > >that divergence is corruption, I'd tend to believe that most people > >on this list have recovered from some form of corruption before. The > >worse the corruption, the more help you likely want to recover from > >it. :) > > > >Anyway, we'll likely debate this for a few months, as we usually do > >on such points. More thoughts to come as we debate further. > > > >~Eric > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett > >Shirley > >Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 12:04 PM > >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption > > > >I wouldn't say that, joe ... > > > >Lets take another hypothetical real quick, lets say you have a column > >for the RDN of an AD object (well we do) and that value is NULL. > >From AD's perspective this object is well not really an object, it > >would be corrupt, and might even crash lsass.exe (I don't know, it might). > > > >However, from ESE's persepctive though, the table/row/column is > >valid, it has a particular column that doesn't have a value. A > >column which I > > >might add is declared "optional" (real term is tagged) in the ESE > >layer > > >"schema" > >(real term is catalog). ESE is simply a store of data, it passes no > >judgement on the data as long as it fits the schema guidelines for > >the column. > > > >Joe, is the DB corrupt? An AD object without an RDN? > > > >---- > > > >I have tendency to think in layers and sources of corruption. > > App Logical Layer > > AD Logical Layer > > ESE Logical Layer > > [ESE] Physical Layer > > > >Corruptions coming top down through that stack are protected by the > >schema configuration/constraints of that layer (as joe astutely > >pointed > > >out). > > > >Corruptions coming bottom up, from disk sub-system hardware, are > >protected by whatever mechanisms those layers have. > > > >---- > > > >Dropping back to the above hypothetical as an ESE dev I can say to > >the AD devs that until they can prove that ESE actually lost thier > >column, that it's most likely some sort of AD transactional problem, > >and the source is an AD bug. If I am feeling unbusy I will debug at > >the AD logical layer, because I know what it's supposed to look like. > > > >---- > > > >Coming back to the original issue of replicating _this kind_ of > >corruption a normal corruption coming bottom up, because the bits we > >(ESE) sent down the disk subsystem, were not the exact bits we got > >back > > >later from the sub-systems is almost always detected by the fact that > >ESE checksums _every byte_ of it's database pages ... and at this > >point > > >everyone should be very thankful Win2k3 AD isn't on SQL 2000, because > >it has few such protections, though SQL 2005 finally caught up, 10 > >years after the fact, it's such a legacy DB, really ... anyway. > > > >When the corruption comes up from the bottom, what happens is ESE > >detects the data is not checksumming, logs an event, and returns a > >-1018 error (in this case), and starts rejecting DB operations (such > >as > >JetSeek() / > >JetRetrieveColumn()) that involve that corrupt database page. AD > >then responds to these failed DB ops with can't authenticate a user, > >AD can't return the results of a search, or AD can't read or apply > >data during replication (those 3 at least probably being the most common). > >In short the system starts limping, without affecting the rest of the > >distributed system. > > > >---- > > > >Coming back to jose's worry of old hardware injecting bad data into > >the > > >distributed system. Fortunately, when the disk subsystem goes bad, > >ESE > > >does a pretty good job of protecting you, but there are other sources > >of corruption, besides corruption, an especially insidious one is the > >bit flip in memory (and yes I see these too) which injects itself in > >the middle of the above stack. This kind of corruption can both end > >up > > >making it's way down to the disk subsystem (with a valid ESE > >checksum), > > >and up and out to the distributed system. > > > >>From the perspective of older hardware though, I would _hypothesize_ > >that > >if you're going to have something go bad the disk or the memory over > >time, keep in mind the disk is the only part of the computer that has > >a > > >moving part. I would expect disks to go bad first. > > > >---- > > > >I would generally not call USN rollback a corruption either, but I > >think Dean make a fair and quasi-valid point that if you consider the > >distributed system, yes such a thing is a corruption. Feel free to > >shim in a "AD Distributed System Logical Layer" in the above stack, > >between AD Logical Layer and App Logical Layer. I'm waffling on this > >point though, as somethign smells differnent that other types of >corruption. > >I'm going to think about that for a long time ... in fact Eric yes > >the > >~Eric) is at my door and says he would consider it corruption, so > >there > > >is a long debate in my future as well ... > > > >>From a storage developers perspective, what someone usually calls > >corruption, is when the data layer they own or lower returns the > >wrong result. > > > >>From a non-storage developers perspective, what someone usually > >>calls > >corruption, is when the data layer below them returns the wrong result. > > > >---- > > > >I'll wax more philosophically on it later .... > > > >Cheers, > >BrettSh > > > > > > > >On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Dean Wells wrote: > > > > > > > >>Great topic and, IMO, great answer ... I've only a few comments in > >> > >> > >addition > > > > > >>to Joe's reply (inline). > >>-- > >>Dean Wells > >>MSEtechnology > >>* Email: dwells <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> @msetechnology.com > >><http://msetechnology.com/> http://msetechnology.com > >> > >> > >> > >> _____ > >> > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe > >>Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 8:56 AM > >>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption > >> > >> > >>I may get into trouble with this post as Brett/Eric/Dean/Steve > >>correct > >> > >> > >me... > > > > > >>But that will be good. > >> > >>[DAW] > >>I'm fairly certain Bratt will have something to say on this one (in > >> > >> > >his > > > > > >>shoes, I know I would). > >>[/DAW] > >> > >>I will start with trying to differentiate between types of > >> > >> > >corruption... My > > > > > >>idea of AD corruption is underlying table corruption. However some > >> > >> > >people > > > > > >>may consider bad (really unexpected) values in AD to be corruption. > >> > >> > >The last > > > > > >>isn't corruption, AD is simply a store of data, it passes no > >>judgement > >> > >> > >on > > > > > >>the data as long as it fits the schema guidelines for the attribute. > >> > >> > >If you > > > > > >>have the DN of a user in the siteObject attribute that isn't > >> > >> > >corruption, it > > > > > >>isn't good, but it is valid for the schema. Or if you have binary > >>data > >> > >> > >in a > > > > > >>unicode string, again, not corruption (a unicode string IS binary > >> > >> > >data). > > > > > >>That being said, if apps (including parts of AD itself) hit > >>unexpected > >> > >> > >data, > > > > > >>you will have some issues even if it isn't truly "corruption" it may > >> > >> > >as well > > > > > >>be in some cases. In fact, table corruption is probably better than > >>unexpected data in many cases. > >> > >>You might be able to argue that a USN rollback is corruption but I > >> > >> > >still > > > > > >>don't consider it so. Valid data, just out of step. > >> > >>[DAW] > >>That's an interesting one. If you treat the distributed database as > >>a > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>whole, then USN rollback is indeed a form of corruption even though > >> > >> > >each > > > > > >>instance may deem itself consistent and intact. > >>[/DAW] > >> > >>Again corruption to me is in the underlying tables. Since AD doesn't > >>replicate the table structures, you can't pass that table corruption > >> > >> > >around. > > > > > >>Once AD realizes that some portion of the database is corrupt which > >> > >> > >would > > > > > >>probably be recognized by ESE saying, "that isn't right" and not > >> > >> > >passing > > > > > >>info back up to higher levels, but instead passing an error. > >> > >> joe > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _____ > >> > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 3:49 AM > >>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption > >> > >> > >>Is this guaranteed? How can we/you be sure that the system will > >> > >> > >recognise > > > > > >>the corruptions and therefore not replicate them? Surely this is > >>akin > >> > >> > >to the > > > > > >>new feature added to e2k3 sp1, but which is (sadly) missing from > >>AD(?) > >> > >>I must be missing a subtle point - please show me the light :) > >> > >> > >>neil > >> > >> _____ > >> > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve > >>Linehan > >>Sent: 05 December 2005 19:26 > >>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption > >> > >> > >>We do not replicate corruption so if you have local corruption as > >> > >> > >noted > > > > > >>below there is no worry that it would replicate around to other > >> > >> > >servers in > > > > > >>the environment. > >> > >>Thanks, > >> > >>-Steve > >> > >> _____ > >> > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Renouf > >>Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 1:04 PM > >>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >>Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption > >> > >> > >>Will Read Only DC's take care of this? I don't know much about them > >> > >> > >yet, but > > > > > >>it makes sense that if the copy of the dit that a DC has is RO that > >>it > >> > >> > >won't > > > > > >>try to replicate that anywhere and would only be the recipient of > >>replication. Anyone with more knowledge about how RO DC's will work > >>to > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>comment on that? > >> > >>Phil > >> > >> > >>On 12/5/05, Medeiros, Jose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>Well at least the corruption occurred on just a single DC. One thing > >> > >> > >that > > > > > >>has bugged me about Active Directory is not being able to select if > >> > >> > >you want > > > > > >>a DC in a remote office to not have the ability to replicate back in > >>a > >> > >> > >large > > > > > >>enterprise environment. Since most remote offices only have a few > >> > >> > >people at > > > > > >>the location and a DC is usually placed for improvised logon and > >>authentication time, many companies will either use a very low end > >> > >> > >server or > > > > > >>a very old decommissioned one from their production data center ( > >> > >> > >Which is > > > > > >>probably close to useable life ). I am always concerned that once > >>the NTDS.DIT file becomes corrupt it will replicate the corruption > >>to the > >> > >> > >other > > > > > >>DC's in the Forrest. > >> > >>Maybe I am just being a worry wort and this really is not an issue. > >> > >> > >> > >>Sincerely, > >>Jose Medeiros > >>ADP | National Account Services > >>ProBusiness Division | Information Services > >>925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Susan > >>Bradley, > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] > >>Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 8:53 AM > >>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >>Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption > >> > >> > >>I did? :-) I think I still said all I know is what the poster said > >> > >> > >:-) > > > > > >>I think I need a course in event log reading because even with the > >> > >> > >logs, > > > > > >>and the default size of the logs, I still don't see a smoking gun. > >> > >> > >The > > > > > >>directory services one is filled with events 'post' blow up. > >> > >>What is interesting is that it seems to me big server land goes .. > >>oh yeah... ntds.dit corruption... and sbsland freaks out. Either we > >>do indeed need to ensure we have a secondary DC or we need to park a > >> > >> > >second > > > > > >>copy of a system state offsite [say at the vap/var] > >> > >>Brett Shirley wrote: > >> > >> > >>>She replied offline, very likely a single bit flip, tragedy, they > >>> > >>> > >aren't > > > > > >>>one release later (Longhorn), where this would've probably been > >>>non-disruptively handled, logged, and possibly self-healed: > >>> http://blogs.technet.com/efleis/archive/2005/01.aspx > >>> > >>>Anyway, this kind of thing is usually hardware ... > >>> > >>>While there are much better disk sub-system testers, one that is > >>> > >>> > >freely > > > > > >>>available to any box with Exchange is jetstress. You might give > >>> > >>> > >that a > > > > > >>>try. If you can reproduce the event / error with jetstress I would > >>> > >>> > >not > > > > > >>>use that box in production. > >>> > >>>If you do reproduce the issue several times (several times is key, > >>> > >>> > >as you > > > > > >>>want a trend before you start playing the variable game), some > >>> > >>> > >things > > > > > >>>you might vary (one at a time): > >>> > >>> - Try making sure you have the latest driver and motherboard / > >>> > >>> > >controller > > > > > >>>firmware. Then see if you can reproduce. > >>> > >>> - Try a different RAID configuration, such as RAID1/RAID1+0 if > >>> > >>> > >you're on > > > > > >>>RAID5. > >>> > >>> - Try swapping out the hard drives, one at a time. > >>> > >>> - Adding the jetstress files to the exclude list in the Anti-Virus > >>>software. (A low probablility, I've never heard of Anit-Virus > >>> > >>> > >causing this > > > > > >>>paticular type of error, and I can't imagine the mistake an > >>> > >>> > >anti-virus > > > > > >>>product would have to have to cause this side effect) > >>> > >>> - If you can reproduce it several times, you could followup with > >>> > >>> > >Dell. > > > > > >>>Good luck. > >>> > >>>I'm not sure if I answered your question ... > >>> > >>>Cheers, > >>>BrettSh > >>> > >>> > >>>On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Eric Fleischman wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Going back to the original post, I'm not sure I fully understand > >>>> > >>>> > >the > > > > > >>>>problem yet. Susan, can you define "ntds.dit file corruption" for > >>>> > >>>> > >us? > > > > > >>>>What sort of corruption? What errors/events lead you to believe > >>>> > >>>> > >this? > > > > > >>>>Specifically, I'm interested in errors from NTDS ISAM or ESE if > >>>>you > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>have any. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>________________________________ > >>>> > >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Susan > >>>> > >>>> > >Bradley, CPA > > > > > >>aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] > >> > >> > >>>>Sent: Sat 12/3/2005 10:58 PM > >>>>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >>>>Subject: [ActiveDir] Ntds.dit file corruption > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>SBS box [with Windows 2003 sp1 since September] > >>>> > >>>>RE: [ActiveDir] Database Corruption: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir@mail.activedir.org/msg32676.htm > >l > > > > > >>>>We have a SBS 2003 sp1 box with a corrupt ntds.dit that the > >>>> > >>>> > >Consultant > > > > > >>>>and PSS have been banging on. Could not get the services back > >>>> > >>>> > >running, > > > > > >>>>changed the RPC service to local system and some service came back > >>>> > >>>> > >up [I > > > > > >>>>don't have all the details but the consultant opened a support > >>>>case > >>>> > >>>> > >of > > > > > >>>>SRX051202605433]. > >>>> > >>>>Bottom line they are about going to give up and start a restore > >>>>but > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>before they do that I'd like to get the view of the AD gods and > >>>>goddesses around here. From all that I've seen, read, seen in the > >>>> > >>>> > >SBS > > > > > >>>>newsgroup, the corruption of ntds.dit is rare to nil and an > >>>> > >>>> > >underlying > > > > > >>>>cause is hardware issues [raid, disk subsystem]. This doesn't > >>>>just > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>happen. > >>>> > >>>>The VAP asked if not properly excluding the ad databases from the > >>>> > >>>> > >a/v > > > > > >>>>would cause this/trigger this and my expectation is 'no', given > >>>> > >>>> > >that I > > > > > >>>>doubt the majority of us in SBSland properly set up exclusions > >>>>Virus > > >>>>scanning recommendations on a Windows 2000 or on a Windows > >>>> > >>>> > >Server > > > > > >>>>2003 domain controller: > >>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;822158 > >>>> > >>>>If this were my hardware and box, I'd be putting this sucker on > >>>>the > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>operating table and getting an autopsy before putting it back > >>>> > >>>> > >online. > > > > > >>>>Are we right in being paranoid now about this hardware? For you > >>>> > >>>> > >guys in > > > > > >>>>big server land you'd just slide over another box into that server > >>>> > >>>> > >role. > > > > > >>>>--------------------------------------- > >>>>Stupid question alert.... > >>>> > >>>>Okay so we know that having a secondary/additional domain > >>>> > >>>> > >controller is > > > > > >>>>a good thing even in SBSland...but question.... many times the > >>>> > >>>> > >second > > > > > >>>>server in SBSland is a terminal server box because we do not > >>>> > >>>> > >support TS > > > > > >>>>in app mode on our PDCs. So we've established that having a domain > >>>>controller and a terminal server is a security issue [see Windows > >>>>Security resource kit, NIST Terminal services hardening guide, etc > >>>>etc....] If our second server is a member server handing out TS > >>>>externally, should that be a candidate for the additional DC? Are > >>>> > >>>> > >the > > > > > >>>>issues of TS on a DC ... true for 'any' DC? Would it be better > >>>> > >>>> > >than to > > > > > >>>>Vserver/VPC a Win2k3 inside a workstation in the network if a > >>>>third > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>server box was not feasible? > >>>> > >>>>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > >>>> > >>>> > >><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/ > > > > > >><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/ > > > > > >>> > >>> > >>-- > >>Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? > >>http://www.threatcode.com > >> > >>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > >><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/ > > > > > >><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 > >><http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx> > >>List archive: > >> > >> > >http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > >> > >>PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential > >> > >> > >and > > > > > >>intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended > >>recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and > >> > >> > >delete your > > > > > >>copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any > >> > >> > >further > > > > > >>action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of > >> > >> > >communication and > > > > > >>Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted > >> > >> > >by law, > > > > > >>accept responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or > >> > >> > >completeness of, > > > > > >>or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or > >> > >> > >disabling > > > > > >>code in, this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of > >> > >> > >this > > > > > >>email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise > >> > >> > >stated > > > > > >>this email: (1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as, > >>investment research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely > >> > >> > >those of > > > > > >>the author and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is > >> > >> > >intended > > > > > >>for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, > >> > >> > >solicitation or > > > > > >>offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. > >> > >> > >NIplc > > > > > >>does not provide investment services to private customers. > >>Authorised > >> > >> > >and > > > > > >>regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England > >>no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St > >> > >> > >Martin's-le-Grand, > > > > > >>London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies. > >> > >> > >> > > > >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/ > > > > > > > >PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential > >and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an > >intended recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately > >and delete your copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute > >or > > >take any further action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure > >method > > >of communication and Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to > >the extent permitted by law, accept responsibility or liability for > >(a) > > >the accuracy or completeness of, or (b) the presence of any virus, > >worm > > >or similar malicious or disabling code in, this message or any > >attachment(s) to it. If verification of this email is sought then > >please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated this email: (1) > >is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as, investment > >research; > >(2) contains views or opinions that are solely those of the author > >and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended for > >informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation > >or offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. > >NIplc does not provide investment services to private customers. > >Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. > >Registered in England no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered >Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand, London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the >Nomura group of companies. > > > >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/ > > > >PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential >and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an >intended recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately >and delete your copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or >take any further action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method >of communication and Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to >the extent permitted by law, accept responsibility or liability for (a) >the accuracy or completeness of, or (b) the presence of any virus, worm >or similar malicious or disabling code in, this message or any >attachment(s) to it. If verification of this email is sought then >please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated this email: (1) is >not, and should not be treated or relied upon as, investment research; >(2) contains views or opinions that are solely those of the author and >do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended for >informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation >or offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. >NIplc does not provide investment services to private customers. >Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. >Registered in England no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered >Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand, London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the >Nomura group of companies. > >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/ PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any further action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of communication and Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted by law, accept responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or completeness of, or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling code in, this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated this email: (1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as, investment research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation or offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc does not provide investment services to private customers. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand, London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies. 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/
