We have allot of users coming back to our central site and
we use the following config.
adapter #1 raid 1 ( 2 disk)
O/S
adapter #2 raid 1 ( 2 disk) AD
LOGS
adapter #3 === raid 5 (3 disk) with
global hot spare AD Data
the key to this using this is that all the equipment
Currently there is an open thread entitled RAID
suggestions for DC; maybe OT. I didnt want to dirty that
thread by introducing my question that builds upon it.
How about other hardware requirements such as CPU, Disk Size
and RAM? RAID configuration I think is documented very well but
The defaults will be more than adequate for a domain of the size you
are discussing.
Personally, I don't tend to build servers today without at least 1GB
of RAM, and any modern CPU with 1GB RAM will easily handle the DC
needs for the that you're talking about.
Here are some other guidelines
Wow. A four-proc machine (933 MHZ?) for 150 users and Exchange? Wow.
My personal opinion:
When it comes to architecture, you have to decide between scale up or scale
out. In AD, scale out is often preferred because it does this well out of
the box and because you want a second copy of the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't
been made
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/technolog
ies/security/ws3pkibp.mspx#EJAA is a 'best practices' guide that
addresses some of this. It covers some of the high-level decisions, and
then goes through a scenario for a three-tier CA hierarchy that you can
reproduce in a
Management summary?
Ok...
I took care of it, go back to sleep.
:o)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Almeida Pinto,
Jorge deSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 4:53 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT (somewhat):
Exchange Server
Dan,
Just like any
Raid Scheme, it pays to pay attention to the types of reads and writes your
system will be making. Keep the random, reads/writes on one drive, and the
Sequential reads/writes on another, that is seperate directory data, from log
data. That allows you to keep your head
joe,
It appears that you could be successful
writing joke books along with the technical ones! Dilbert might be looking for
new material. Thanks for the laugh!
Mike Thommes
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday,
Stupid blonde alert
I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but none in
the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in the rack
world?
I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server and
desktop respectively] but because the dang cables
Awesome,
Thanks a lot
Original Message Follows
From: Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Certificate Services AD
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:03:41 +1100
Not a web resources, but I've found
Ok, Sue, you know that when you leave a dangling diss like that someone is
going to ask you to support it ;-)
Beyond the connectors coming undone (something I have not experienced with
Dell desktop SATA), do you have specific criticisms about the Dell towers?
Thanks -- we are about to buy
Title: Replication Issue
I currently manage a child domain in a forest. When trying to add a specific user account to any of my universal groups (security or distribution), replication fails. Let me clarify.
If I add this account to a group on DC1, it seems to work. However, when I try to
silly no-hair-color alert
SATA == Desktop drives.
They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I see
them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of what I've
seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where you can absorb
the continuous loss of
Remember my space.we don't do racks much in SBSlandso your
mileage in big server land may vary.
I have a Dell OEM just so I can have a Dell OEM and see what they
screwed up in that OEM image and test things on itand ..uhit
even sounds cheap.
It's about support as well.
HP
So further on the concept of rollback, since a virtual DC is now supported -
are there any whitepapers or technical commentary on how to perform a
successful rollback?
We use virtual DCs for one purpose - the capability to move them to the lab and
build a domain. However, I'm really
Depends on the model. We've got some low end Dell stuff for external DNS
(PowerEdge 800s) where i'm not too bothered if it dies, and the build quality
is less than the normal Dell server standard (there's an open statement!).
As for the cables, they're the same no matter what so they're just as
I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units in a Raid
5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm still just as happy
;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they wanted inside the budget
we had.
One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out
That's a desktop user? The apple desktop?
I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as designed.
It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended for
desktops (i.e. cheap but not as
Nope, DASD to a Apple G5 Xserve for a very small amount of Apple clients (10)
with very high storage requirements. To be honest, the thing that made me go
for this solution in the end was that performance was better using the native
Apple stuff end to end and writing to SATA than it was having
Hi Neil, Brian, Fred,
Thanks for your responses, having searched on the message groups, I have come across a few people who have suggested than renaming a Windows 2003 using the Netdom function is not a good idea without backing it up with a viable reason.
Neil - what was the reason you decided
Ed -
With all due respect, both posts that you've made in response to this thread
have been negative (George Carlin hasn't written anything original... Blah,
blah...) and the fact that I mention that I should beat my admin because of
missing a backup. How I choose to treat my employees is my
I have a very odd problem. I am testing Windows 2003 Active Directory
(running in W2K Native Mode) and on the W2K3 DCs, I get the following
message when running NETDIAG:
DNS test . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Failed
[FATAL] Could not open file C:\WINNT\system32\config\netlogon.dns
for reading.
Interesting. If that solution becomes a problem, have a look at
http://www.centrify.com and see if you can change some of that :)
Seriously, it is interesting and I'm interested to hear of the long term
results as they occur. Shall we check back in a year or so?
Al
From: Rob MOIR [EMAIL
Why do you have to keep the names the same?
-ASB
FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO
http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
On 11/4/05, Frank Abagnale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am planning on replacing my existing Domain Controller hardware with new
HP Servers. All DC's in my environment
May sound stupid but...
* does the file exist?
* Is the DC pointing to your internal DNS or to your ISP DNS?
Cheers,
Jorge
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rachui, Scott
Sent: Mon 11/7/2005 9:20 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir]
I *think* there was an updated version of netdiag that came out. It might
be useful to ensure you have the latest.
Also, have you verified that the file exists?
If neither of those relates, can you give some more information? Are you
running this remotely from your desktop? From the
I've been doing various tests myself and while I wouldn't say a DFSR is a
quantum leap from Double-Take, I'd certainly agree that it is when compared to
FRS. Maybe even two leaps... Certainly something that I consider one of the
main benefits of R2.
But besides all the talk on the file
...use as small a disk as you can
get. (8 GB)
gee, I didn't know
disks that size are still around. Mind you, 8GB is extremely small these
days - our DIT wouldn't even fit on it ;-)And before spending too much
money on ensuring minimum latency and low seek times (I'd say these should be
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Al Mulnick
Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 20:41
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Interesting. If that solution becomes a problem, have a look at
http://www.centrify.com and see if you can
Rick added, to Ed:
Who ARE you, anyway?
See, this thread has just got REAL interesting...
[takes out chips and coke, settles back into recliner chair to take in
the show that may begin]
Personalising posts makes technical lists just that more enjoyable.
themolk.
-Original
Wow, that's pretty harsh, don't you think?
Are only MS employees and Directory Services MVPs allowed to make
smart-ass comments or have opinions?
Ed is a very well known and well respected Exchange MVP.
And he happens to be right, in my opinion. Any Exchange administrator
should be well aware
Title: [ActiveDir] Unreadable Netlogon.dns file
Internal DNS. And Im able to ping
it with fine.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Almeida Pinto, Jorge de
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005
2:50 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE:
I have just verified that I have the latest version of Netdiag
(5.2.3790.0). As for the netlogon.dns file, I have verified it. In
fact, I renamed it, restarted netlogon service and it recreated it
correctly.
I'm running this from a terminal server session on the box itself. I
haven't tried
Not in defense of Rick ...but .
I think his reaction stems from the history of THIS list. IMO, this list
tended to refrain from caustic/sarcastic responses as much as possible.
I think Ed's style is unique to this list. It does play well on the
Exchange List, but it becomes a culture shock
Since you are saying the file is there but netdiag can't see it.
If I were a betting man, I would say for some reason the context under
which netdiag is running does not have perms to read the file. The code
in question does an fopen() on it with parameters rt. I suspect,
though don't know,
Rick -
I was replying to your assertion:
Miss one or two backups and that volume that holds your log files might
experience this issue with no fault of the admin at all.
An admin may not be at fault because a backup doesn't occur, with that I
agree. However, an admin not knowing that the
Taking offline... I only berate joe in public... (he fights nasty, too.
Spits, eye gouges, hair pulling and all...)
Forgot about that when I replied earlier. VBG
Rick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP]
Sent: Monday,
BTW - just so no one thinks anything different, I was a bit harsh with Ed.
Apologies from me are, well, too often these days. I'm not going to burden
the list with this
This one thread has gone WY too far.
I would ask that it be allowed to die.
Thanks.
Rick
-Original
This is a great place to discuss AD. Many of us who participate in this DL
actively are good friends and often chat outside of here - we know each
other's personalities, etc.
When you're new someplace, at least in my opinion, it's not worth walking in
and acting like hot shit on the first day.
I found a MSFT site for planning domain controller capacity. If anyone is
interested, you can find it via the URL
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/library/DepKi
t/4af3271a-4407-4ca5-9cd5-e05b79046d08.mspx
Edwin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Huh? How did I get pulled into this? I seem to have a bad reputation around
here. Here I thought everyone loved my posts. I certainly enjoy them and
that has to mean something.
BTW, I don't spit or pull hair but I do kick. Judo Chop! Judo Chop!!!
As for Ed, well he's just Ed you know? He sort
~Eric
Who ARE you, anyway?(t)
(t) - Trademark, Rick Kingslan.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fleischman
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:41 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Unreadable Netlogon.dns
How about just not partitioning the whole disk of the
larger disks? Note I didn't come up with that idea, that came from a young
whippersnapper I know out of Redmond whom I was discussing the fastest AD disk
configs with a few weeks ago. I haven't tried it but it makes sense to me. Just
Exchange is cruel. (TM - Cthulhu)
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 6:59 PM
To:
joe, joe, joe.
Believe me. Don't DO NOT *DO NOT* call ~Eric's attention my way...
(He's my assigned handler... AND He's GOOD at it...)
Rick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:00 PM
To:
I have this vague feeling your young whippersnapper's
initials are E.F. Could be wrong, though.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:09 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Raid
47 matches
Mail list logo
