<stupid question alert>
Does your DC have to be Enterprise to support this? I was under the
impression that just that the schema had to be updated on the DC..but
that member servers could have these functions even if the DC didn't.
For example the DFS, Printer management stuff of R2, just has to be on a
member server and then the schema on the DC is kicked up to support the
R2 bits, but it itself doesn't have to be running the R2 bits.
Susan
Ryan A. Conrad wrote:
Jorge,
Are you suggesting that some DCs an be Ent. Ed. and some Std.? I
noticed in the matrix that MIIS integration/support was limited to
Ent. Ed., as well as pieces of ADFS. We presently have an empty root
(ignoring why we have it, as I don't want to spark any heated
conversations), with several child domains that we are working on
eliminating. Forest is at 2003 FFL.
Thanks again!
Ryan
On 2/14/06, *Almeida Pinto, Jorge de*
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
I these are plain vanila DCs standard edition is OK. However it
really depends on what additional features you want to use on your
DCs. Compare the editions of W2K3 and see what you need for each DC.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/comparefeatures.mspx
jorge
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on behalf of Ryan A.
Conrad
Sent: Tue 2006-02-14 16:37
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org <mailto:ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>
Subject: [ActiveDir] W2K3 Std. vs. Ent. for DCs
Dean posted this comment in a recent post:
----------------------------
I have no concerns using Standard edition for DCs, I don't see it
too often since the majority of my customers are licensed up the
wazoo and use whatever ISO they stumble across first :o)
----------------------------
As ironic as it is, we have recently been prodded by our internal
server support group to provide sufficient documentation (beyond
saying "because we want it") as to why we need W2K3 Ent. instead
of W2K3 Std. Thus far the only thing official I've been able to
come up with is the fact that we have multiple DFS roots. They
seem to think that the license costs for Ent. being 3x that of
Std. doesn't justify implementation.
Can anyone point me to some documentation or specific reasons to
stick with Ent.? Ultimately this is what we want for AD, but
somehow our desires are not good enough when it comes to $$$ savings.
Thanks!
Ryan
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the
intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material,
confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It
should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other
party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly
delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform
the sender. Thank you.
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
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/
