dir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC or not DC
Keep in mind you can run a DC for even a moderately sized org on a typical
desktop machine.
Since DC's (except the FSMO role holders) are scale-out redundant, there's
no reason not to add additional capacity by using desktop class machines.
-
, Stuart
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 11:34 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC or not DC
>
> I hate to drag this off subject slightly and since no one has
> mentioned it, but isn't the whole point of Microsoft Virtual
> Server and VMwar
k & MS-MVP
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 8:50 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC or not DC
>
> Yeah MS has always said best practice is
Return Receipt
Your RE: [ActiveDir] DC or not DC
document
34
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC or not DC
I hate to drag this off subject slightly and since no one has mentioned it,
but isn't the whole point of Microsoft Virtual Server and VMware GSX/ESX so
that you can run multiple servers on the same physical server and no
esday, February 16, 2005 11:34 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC or not DC
>
> I hate to drag this off subject slightly and since no one has
> mentioned
> it, but isn't the whole point of Microsoft Virtual Server and VMware
> GSX/ESX so t
r own.
joe
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fuller, Stuart
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 2:34 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC or not DC
I hate to drag this off subject slightly and since no on
CTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:50 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC or not DC
Yeah MS has always said best practice is not to put back office apps or
IIS
on domain controllers for as long as I can recall. Ditto file and print.
There are po
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Shaff
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 11:24 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC or not DC
If you have the resources on the box and can not afford to purchase a new
box for SQL or Exchange, then you are stuck with the only one option.
H
ff
> Sent: woensdag 16 februari 2005 17:24
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC or not DC
>
> If you have the resources on the box and can not afford to
> purchase a new box for SQL or Exchange, then you are stuck
> with the only one option. H
If you have the resources on the box and can not afford to purchase a
new box for SQL or Exchange, then you are stuck with the only one
option. However, I am a big believer of keeping the server roles
separate. I find that the overhead of SQL (and even Exchange) is rather
high during peek times.
I collected most of the current information regarding Exchange and
domain controllers into a single place a few weeks ago and put it all
together. Take a look at:
Exchange Server 2003 and Domain Controllers - A Summary
http://blogs.brnets.com/michael/archive/2005/01/24/319.aspx
-Original Me
If you can afford it, it's best not to run any applications at all on a
DC as new apps open up new ports and generally provide a larger attack
surface to hit a DC with. You also have the potential problem of an
application problem bringing down the DC. Of course, SBS will install
everything on one
13 matches
Mail list logo
