I also said, I have to spend my time and money wisely.
 
I am well aware of why people use lag-sites.  They always like to throw the 
money issue around... but I wonder what the TCO is really.  Maybe these major 
AD DR players should commission a study.... heck maybe MSFT should for both AD 
and Exchange Mailboxes.
 
I think you would do better to encourage new Admins to make sure they do a MFT 
backup of a domain controllers system state each night, then stand-up more 
sites and servers.  Then based on need select the restore method and evaluate 
the results.
 
I agree knowing how all the inner workings does help as well, but operations 
people are usually not engineers, so it is best to give them tools that have 
some workflow, and makes the operation smooth and less error prone.
 
Thanks again,
Todd

________________________________

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 3/6/2006 2:09 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] AD Lag Sites



He does NOT "have to save the company money", he says.

That's MY money you are talking about there, bucko! :)

Seriously, Todd, you do have to understand that a vast majority of IT shops
don't have budget for their IT folks to be as productive as they desire to
be. This is why people tend to be as creative and conservative as possible.
They want to stay as native as humanly possible and as painful as the
exercise tend to be, they typically can't do anything about it. When
management expects you to squeeze water out of rocks, you hardly have much
options.

The "Lag Site" concept is not a replacement for specialized recovery
solutions. But, the concept came about as a result of people realizing that,
much as they like the Quests and Netpros of this world, the steep price
associated with them makes those products out of reach. If you've seen the
"California Cows" commercials, you will begin to understand how much people
salivate over professional tools. So, what's a poor admin to do? Especially
when his/her CIO has just played golf with a buddy who has just read
something from, say, Gartner, preaching the benefits of "DR", and the CIO now
wants DR implemented like, oh, say, one week ago without any additional
funding?

"Lag Sites" are NOT as expensive as any of the other options. Where budget
constraint is a factor, the "Lag Site" concept is the next best thing for any
AD Admin. The fact that it requires some expertise to successfully implement
and utilize IS a big plus rather than a drawback. If you are going to
administer any sizeable enterprise where DR is essential, you better start
knowing something about the inner workings of the things you are claiming to
be administering. Come to think of it, the vendors who market these
specialized recovery tools are not engaged in voodoo. By learning how things
work, you may not need to pay their "protection" money any longer.

OK, now I've said too much ;)


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 Myrick, Todd
(NIH/CC/DNA) [E]
Sent: Mon 3/6/2006 10:36 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] AD Lag Sites



I don't really look at problems from the "Trying to Save Money Approach"....
I try to spend my money and use my time wisely.



 I base all my value judgments on the following factors. 



1. Does it value people?

2. Is it priced acceptably?  (I value dominate designs, but also feel that
some innovative features are worth more if they offer added value)

3. Is the solution timely?

4. Does the solution offer reproducible results?



AD lag site restores seem a little advanced for general operators to be able
to perform.  To me restore operations are an operator job not an engineer's
so I want a solution that offers value to operators.



The standard "Free" AD solution to restore objects has a lot of CLI, it
doesn't restore all the attributes, it takes more time to implement, it
requires a DC be rebooted, it lacks the ability to restore single attributes,
and groups.  The lag site approach seems okay initially, but it requires more
dedicated hardware that has to be maintained, it complicates the AD design in
a "unnatural way", it requires knowledge of the AD site architecture to
properly implement (You have to force replication to the rest of the forest)
and takes longer to implement a restore operation... (The use might be out in
china, where your lag site might be in the UK).



For me I wanted the ability to quickly restore objects using a turnkey
solution that I can delegate to trusted operators to perform.  A dedicated
person to do this task would cost about 30 to 40K per year. My base thinking
is that would work between 10K to 20K up front, and about 3 to 5% overhead
each additional year.  I gain the ability to restore all objects and
attributes, as well as groups and their memberships.  I can restore these
objects at the site the user resides, I don't have to reboot a DC to do this
operation, and I free up the engineer to be an engineer not an operator. 



So my priorities are different than yours..... and so are my
responsibilities.  I don't have to save the company money.



Notice I didn't say lag sites don't work, but the number of steps involved to
do an authoritative restore compared to using a third-party product designed
for the job and the possible end results are akin to shooting a bullet and
throwing one.



Yeah you probably hit the target both ways.... But I think my way is more
accurate, has better range, and gets the job done a lot faster and has the
potential to be more effective with less skill.



Todd Myrick



________________________________

From: Frank Abagnale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 5:47 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] AD Lag Sites



Todd,



You mentioned 'potentially has the ability to create more problems'



Could you outline the problems that are on your mind?



I see Lag Sites as a solution to save the business money from purchasing a
solution, but I still need to think about business risk if such a solution
was to be implemented.



Frank

"Myrick, Todd (NIH/CC/DNA) [E]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

        Agreed.

        

        Not a big fan of the "Lag-Site", I think it potentially has the
ability to create more problems.  At least MS added some limited
functionality in 2003, now if they would just finish the job in Vista this
topic might goto rest.  (Are you there Stewart?)

        

        I do see value in Creative Subnetting, when it comes to establishing
multiple sites on a physical network segment to get the KCC to replicate in a
more deterministic manner.  Fun to do in the classroom too when teaching
subnetting.

        

        Todd Myrick

        

       
________________________________


        From: Almeida Pinto, Jorge de
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
        Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:17 AM
        To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
        Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] AD Lag Sites

        

        7 lag sites? holy sh*t!

        would it be much cheaper to use a solution that can undelete the
deleted objects and restore (push back) the attributes?

        jorge

       
________________________________


        From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ulf B. Simon-Weidner
        Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 16:59
        To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
        Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] AD Lag Sites

        As Jorge mentioned you do not have to follow your physical subnets
for Lag-Sites. Usually you would use that as a guideline, but for lag-sites
you can do a sub-subnetting. AD replication does not care about the physical
structure or TCP/IP-Settings (Subnetmask, Def-Gateway) - it just cares what
you have configured in the sites, subnets and what IP the DC is using. So you
can in a 10.1.x.x network you could configure all servers with 10.1.x.x
IP-Adresses with a Subnet-Mask of 255.255.0.0, however you keep all servers
in one lagsite in the same "virtual subnet" 10.1.9.x and all production
Servers in 10.1.1.x - 10.1.8.x. Remember that all have the default gateway
and subnet mask for 10.1.x.x. But now you create the virtual subnets in AD,
and join 10.1.1.x - 10.1.8.x to the production site, and 10.1.9.x to the
lag-site.. AD-Replication will do what you wanted it to do, even without the
need for routing.

        

        However - and this was the main reason why I wanted to follow up on
this - remember that one lag-site might not be enough. Imagine you configure
your lag-site to replicate every thursday 6pm. So if someone makes an error
deleting a whole OU on e.g. Tuesday, you are recognizing it on Wednesday and
are able to rollback this OU (authoritative restore on the lag site, then
force replication). However if someone deletes a OU on thursday, and you
recognize it on friday (or even thursday 7pm) you have to restore a server
from tape first, because your only lag-site has already replicated that
deletion.

        

        What I prefer is creating two lag-sites, one which replicates in the
middle of the week and one which replicates on the weekend. No matter when
the error will be performed (even right before replication of one of the
lag-sites), we always have a at least half week old copy of the AD in the one
of the Lag-Site. And I've even heard from someone using seven lag-sites for
every day in the week. Perhaps he's jumping into this thread later ;-)

        

        Gruesse - Sincerely,

        Ulf B. Simon-Weidner

          MVP-Book "Windows XP - Die Expertentipps": http://tinyurl.com/44zcz
<http://tinyurl.com/44zcz>
          Weblog: http://msmvps.org/UlfBSimonWeidner
<http://msmvps.org/UlfBSimonWeidner>
          Website: http://www.windowsserverfaq.org
<http://www.windowsserverfaq.org/>
          Profile:
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=35E388DE-4885-4308-B489-F2F1214C811D


        

                

               
________________________________


                From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Abagnale
                Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:29 PM
                To: Active
                Subject: [ActiveDir] AD Lag Sites

                Single Forest, Single Domain, W2K3 FFL

                

                I am thinking about setting up a lag site for DR purposes.

                

                Just for clarification purposes, would I need a separate IP
subnet i.e IP subnet that isn't assigned to any other site in AD to create
this?

                

                All my existing IP Subnets are assigned to existing Sites
which are used for normal replication, so I am assuming my question will
result in a yes.

                

                Does anyone have any recommended guides to follow

                

                thanks frank

               
________________________________


                Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/virusall/*http:/communications.yahoo
.com/features.php?page=221>  helps detect nasty viruses!



________________________________

Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/PMall/*http:/photomail.mail.yahoo.co
m> - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

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/

Reply via email to