Oh ...
So virtual is where my test
environment should be ...
And that will adequately equate
to a "real" production environment?
["Hmmmmmm ..." he wonders,
"Could it be true?"]
_____________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Deji Akomolafe
Sent: 17 August, 2006 4:45 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] FMSO roles split, patch question.That argument went out the window when the following happened:Dell started selling desktops with jillion gigabyte drive space for under $1000Microsoft started giving away Virtual Server with very liberal Windows Server 2003 licenses.Us poor admins no longer needed bazillion dollars to create "test environments".Sorry, try another one :)
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.com - we know IT
-5.75, -3.23
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
From: Gordon Pegue
Sent: Thu 8/17/2006 1:31 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] FMSO roles split, patch question.What about us poor admins, who for a variety of reasons outside their control, don't have a "test" environment?I'm just a little guy, supporting a small business that doesn't have kilobucks to spare for non-production equipment.I sweat bullets every time MS issues updates and I spend a lot of time researching each and every one of them before I apply...Thanks
Gordon Pegue
System Administrator
Chavez Grieves Consulting Engineers
Albuquerque, NM
www.cg-engrs.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deji Akomolafe
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:53 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] FMSO roles split, patch question.I completely disagree with you. I understand the thinking behind the move-roles-before-patch stance. I just don't buy into it. Test patch and be sure it doesn't kill things. Test your config changes and be sure it doesn't break things. Test, test and test more before you move into production.Then deploy to production. IF, in spite of all your tests, "something" goes wrong with one DC holding a specific role (or - perish the thought - ALL your roles), it's no big deal. As long as you have other DCs available to assume the roles, the target DCwill not care how they got the roles (graceful transfer or inelegant seizure).It's good to have a script that moves roles as you desire, but this does not fall into the realm of "best practice" in the scheme of things. Your energy should be invested in instituting a comprehensive patch/change management and testing operations practice rather than figuring out where to move roles to in case a patch eats your DC.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.com - we know IT
-5.75, -3.23
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
From: joe
Sent: Thu 8/17/2006 9:31 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] FMSO roles split, patch question.I completely concur with Jorge on his process. It takes a lot less hassle and a lot less feeling of concern to move a FSMO prior to an update of a machine than to have to seize the role later regardless of the reason of it going down. Especially when you have a script that applies the NTSUTIL commands to move the roles. A move of all roles in a properly scripted environment is a procedure that takes all of about 10-15 seconds. A seize on the other hand isn't something you should just quickly think about doing, you need to work out the consequences and make a determination in most cases whether or not you will ever bring that DC back up as it stands now. It is, IMO, a no-brainer if you have multiple DCs as it is isn't any real workload or concern to do it. When I am doing production ops I *always* move roles prior to making machine specific updates. I never assume a server is going to come back up after I say restart or in fact even go down properly without hanging. Now I understand the SBS thoughts behind it though... In the SBS world if you lost the DC, you have far greater issues than you lost a FSMO role for the moment. In the world outside of SBS, most people look at DCs as expendable. You set up 10 of them in front of you and 5 fell down you would be like, crap, I will have to fix those at some point. You set up an SBS DC and it falls over there are skid marks where you were previously standing. joe -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:48 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] FMSO roles split, patch question. As a person who tests/patches a bunch of single DCs.... I've never seen a "patch" kill a server. Driver update may and has, yes. Impair functionality of the server, yes. But kill it completely? Microsoft tests patches ahead of time and they would find ahead of time if basic functionality of a DC would be nailed. But if the server dies... it was probably on the emergency list prior to patching. Rebooting the box first ensures that you find these 'hospital bound' servers. Almeida Pinto, Jorge de wrote: > the reason is that is a DC dies during the patching you do not have to seize the roles....IMHO, I prefer transfering over seizing > > Met vriendelijke groeten / Kind regards, > Ing. Jorge de Almeida Pinto > Senior Infrastructure Consultant > MVP Windows Server - Directory Services > > LogicaCMG Nederland B.V. (BU RTINC Eindhoven) > ( Tel : +31-(0)40-29.57.777 > ( Mobile : +31-(0)6-26.26.62.80 > * E-mail : <see sender address> > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Strongosky > Sent: Thu 2006-08-17 16:55 > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] FMSO roles split, patch question. > > > I cornfused is this a standard practice as I thought you did not want to move the FMSO roles back and forth. > > john > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Almeida Pinto, Jorge de > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 4:33 AM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] FMSO roles split, patch question. > > > in addition to that.... > DC1 having FSMOset1 and DC2 having FSMOset2 > transfer FSMOset1 from DC1 to DC2 > apply patches to DC1 and reboot and check everything (event logs DCdiag, etc) > if everything OK! > transfer FSMOset1 and FSMOset2 from DC2 to DC1 > apply patches to DC2 and reboot and check everything (event logs DCdiag, etc) > if everything OK! > transfer FSMOset2 from DC1 to DC2 > voila (that's french)...done! ;-) > > jorge > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deji Akomolafe > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 01:52 > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] FMSO roles split, patch question. > > > It doesn't matter. > > > > Sincerely, > _____ > (, / | /) /) /) > /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ > ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ > (_/ /) > (/ > Microsoft MVP - Directory Services > www.akomolafe.com - we know IT > -5.75, -3.23 > Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon > > ________________________________ > > From: John Strongosky > Sent: Tue 8/8/2006 4:49 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: [ActiveDir] FMSO roles split, patch question. > > > We have our FMSO roles split between 2 dc's. They are Schema Master/Domain Tree Operator on 1 and on 2, the roles PDC Emulator/Rid Pool/Intrastate on the other. After I apply the patches from Microsoft what is the beat practices for the boot order...or does it matter? > > 1. Remote DC/GC's first > 2. no. 1 > 3. then no 2. > > > thanks > > > > > > > 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 If you are a SBSer and you don't subscribe to the SBS Blog... man ... I will hunt you down... http://blogs.technet.com/sbs List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
