If you are going to have one domain and one domain up until eternity and you
don't see your company growing much more then what it is right now then I
would go for single domain/forest.
If not, then it's best to prepare for expansion by creating empty root.
Security is not the main reason for
Have you created two sites each associated with the different networks. (I
suppose it's a routed network?)
-Original Message-
From: Oluwaseyi Owoeye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 February 2003 10:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ActiveDir] Authentication irregularities
I
At a command prompt type set logonserver. That'll get you where you logged
in to. If you set up different sites for the two buildings, and associate
subnets with each site, the machines will log into their local DC. This is
assuming you have W2K or XP clients. If you've got 9x or pre SP4 NT4,
This may be a little simplistic and naive, but if you didn't maintain
reverse lookup zones, the problem would be eliminated. What would the
repercussions be to maintaining only forward lookup zones on a internally
used DNS?
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL
Depends on your applications.
We do a lot of work on Unix machines, and they generally require reverse DNS
lookups for some of their processes. I also find it useful for tracking back
to users and their machines when we're seeing strange traffic on the
network. Personally, I think it is
Hey gang!
My group and I are having a somewhat lengthydiscussion
about drive partitioning and Windows 2000, and I'd like to solicit some input
from the group.
The scenario:
We have a Dell server with a PERC card and 5 - 18GB
drives. All drives are configured in a RAID5 array w/ hot spare.
Diane, Rick
I ran this by one of the AD Program Manager's at Microsoft (Rick, you had an evening
meal with him last week). Here's his response:
Regarding the thread around password migraton: This is
a riddle :-). The only way how this could have worked is if all users
used their user names
Yes, Software Assurance. We were in the SUS-SA beta program but 2.0 never really came
up in detail, just some vague predictions in response to comments about the beta.
Note to self- Nag TAM about 2.0 :-]
SA looks feels like the exact same product as the standard version, just expands the
John,
First thing I do is run the AD Sizer tool
downloaded for free from MS. That'll tell you how big your Active Directory will
be approximately. Always build for growth through the life cycle of the machine
obviously.
If you want to limit the amount of space for the
OS, you can still
deja vu...just going through this conundrum myself in the last few days...sigh
The advanced network features for Visio 2002 were discontinued recently:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/visio/evaluation/indepth/network.asp
Visio Enterprise Network Tools and Visio Network Center
Posted: July
Ecora.com offers some solutions related to this that may help, but they come
at a cost obviously.
___
Larry A. Duncan, MCSE/MCSA
Manager, Special Projects
O: 615-770-8547; C: 615-598-0241
F: 615-770-8518; www.gspnet.com
-Original Message-
I looked at Ecora - wasn't very happy -- but that is just my opinion.
I was happier just using Visio and creating the AD and Exchange diagram
myself. Took a while - but it served it's purpose.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Larry A
Title: Message
Question about
GPO:
As part of best practices for Windows 2000 Active
Directory Policy is there a benefit to disabling settings that are not used in a
policy rather than leaving them as "Not Configured" Does the policy apply
quicker if it is set to disabled or not configured
Bob,
Yes, you're correct. I'm working with SMS 2003 right now as well, and
IMHO, it still exhibits a lot of the nagging issues that I've always had
with SMS. But, it does introduce some nice features, like drizzle
through BITS (it doesn't take up the entire 100MB pipe and server with
it), check
Title: Message
More
in jest, Craig - not being completely serious - about the flaming, at
least!
;o)
Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCTMicrosoft MVP - Active
DirectoryAssociate ExpertExpert Zone -
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Title: Message
Oh I know especially after
yesterday
-Original Message-
From: Rick Kingslan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Group
Policy
More in jest, Craig - not
being completely serious -
Title: Message
Taking
that one step further, disabling things can get you in trouble further down the
GPO hierarchy due to the inheritance of the disabled settings. I'm with the
leave it "Not configured" camp unless you have explicit reasons and know all the
ramifications...
-Original
17 matches
Mail list logo
