|
|
Let me pose a scenario and please tell me your opinions as to the best
configuration.
We have a number of sites. a main site has about 100+ systems with 2 domain
controllers
we have another site that is the head quarters of a subsidiary with 60+ systems
and also has 2 domain controllers
we have 2 remote sites with 10 and 20 systems respectively each with their own
DC
it has been mentioned to me that the 2nd DC at the site with 60+ is not needed
(also each DC is a DNS, DHCP (with non-conficting pools) server)
any thoughts?
|
|
In news:part1of1.1.J88X$GkmBzb4Qw[ at ]ue.ph,
Cynyster <Cynyster[ at ]GOVsucks.com> requesting assistance, typed the following:
[Quoted Text] > Let me pose a scenario and please tell me your opinions as to the best
> configuration.
>
> We have a number of sites. a main site has about 100+ systems with 2
> domain controllers
> we have another site that is the head quarters of a subsidiary with
> 60+ systems and also has 2 domain controllers
> we have 2 remote sites with 10 and 20 systems respectively each with
> their own DC
>
> it has been mentioned to me that the 2nd DC at the site with 60+ is
> not needed (also each DC is a DNS, DHCP (with non-conficting pools)
> server)
>
> any thoughts?
Well, no, you don't have to have a DC locally, however the best practice
answer is if there are more than 10 clients at any given site, it is
recommended to place a DC locally, installing DNS, if using WINS, making it
a WINS server, as well as making it a GC, otherwise logon, authentication
and resolution traffic for the 60 users will take up a good portion of the
WAN link. Make sure your Sites are configured properly with their respective
subnets to control authentication and logon traffic.
--
Ace
This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.
Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCT
Microsoft Certified Trainer
For urgent issues, you may want to contact Microsoft PSS directly.
Please check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone
numbers.
|
|
Hello Cynyster,
For performance reasons of the DC one would be enough in your case, it the
server is not that old hardware. But think also about WAN connectivity, the
clients must have DNS/DC available to logon to the domain, if the WAN links
are down for whatever reason your user's can't logon with only one site DC/DNS
when this is down. Also DHCP is needed for new starting up machines, they
will need a lease and if DHCP is down they will not get one.
Best regards
Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
[Quoted Text] > Let me pose a scenario and please tell me your opinions as to the best
> configuration.
>
> We have a number of sites. a main site has about 100+ systems with 2
> domain
> controllers
> we have another site that is the head quarters of a subsidiary with
> 60+ systems
> and also has 2 domain controllers
> we have 2 remote sites with 10 and 20 systems respectively each with
> their own
> DC
>
> it has been mentioned to me that the 2nd DC at the site with 60+ is
> not needed (also each DC is a DNS, DHCP (with non-conficting pools)
> server)
>
> any thoughts?
>
|
|
what I would do (without knowing everything from your environment)
assumptions:
* 1 AD forest/domain
* Hub and Spoke WAN
* DNS on DCs
looking at the numbers you are mentioning I would:
* put 2 DCs at the HUB site
* put 1 DC at each Branch Office Site OR no DC at all if the WAN to the HUB
is sufficient and redundant
* Configure DNS of clients/servers to use local DNS and then DNS in HUB site
--
Cheers,
(HOPEFULLY THIS INFORMATION HELPS YOU!)
# Jorge de Almeida Pinto # MVP Identity & Access - Directory Services #
BLOG (WEB-BASED)--> http://blogs.dirteam.com/blogs/jorge/default.aspx
BLOG (RSS-FEEDS)--> http://blogs.dirteam.com/blogs/jorge/rss.aspx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and confers no rights!
* Always test ANY suggestion in a test environment before implementing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#################################################
#################################################
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cynyster" <Cynyster[ at ]GOVsucks.com> wrote in message
news:part1of1.1.J88X$GkmBzb4Qw[ at ]ue.ph...
[Quoted Text] > Let me pose a scenario and please tell me your opinions as to the best
> configuration.
>
> We have a number of sites. a main site has about 100+ systems with 2
> domain
> controllers
> we have another site that is the head quarters of a subsidiary with 60+
> systems
> and also has 2 domain controllers
> we have 2 remote sites with 10 and 20 systems respectively each with their
> own
> DC
>
> it has been mentioned to me that the 2nd DC at the site with 60+ is not
> needed
> (also each DC is a DNS, DHCP (with non-conficting pools) server)
>
> any thoughts?
|
|
Thank you for all your replies.
Do you see any detrimental effect of having extra DC's in either the main site
or the subsidiary site (the two remote locations I think would be excessive to
have more than one)
Cynyster <Cynyster[ at ]GOVsucks.com> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >Let me pose a scenario and please tell me your opinions as to the best
>configuration.
>
>We have a number of sites. a main site has about 100+ systems with 2 domain
>controllers
>we have another site that is the head quarters of a subsidiary with 60+
>systems
> and also has 2 domain controllers
>we have 2 remote sites with 10 and 20 systems respectively each with their own
>DC
>
>it has been mentioned to me that the 2nd DC at the site with 60+ is not needed
>(also each DC is a DNS, DHCP (with non-conficting pools) server)
>
>any thoughts?
|
|
not not really. MOre DCs would be a waste of hardware looking at the numbers
you specified
--
Cheers,
(HOPEFULLY THIS INFORMATION HELPS YOU!)
# Jorge de Almeida Pinto # MVP Identity & Access - Directory Services #
BLOG (WEB-BASED)--> http://blogs.dirteam.com/blogs/jorge/default.aspx
BLOG (RSS-FEEDS)--> http://blogs.dirteam.com/blogs/jorge/rss.aspx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and confers no rights!
* Always test ANY suggestion in a test environment before implementing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#################################################
#################################################
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cynyster" <GOV[ at ]sucks.com> wrote in message
news:part1of1.1.lhG2woAMO9qAWw[ at ]ue.ph...
[Quoted Text] > Thank you for all your replies.
>
> Do you see any detrimental effect of having extra DC's in either the main
> site
> or the subsidiary site (the two remote locations I think would be
> excessive to
> have more than one)
>
>
> Cynyster <Cynyster[ at ]GOVsucks.com> wrote:
>>Let me pose a scenario and please tell me your opinions as to the best
>>configuration.
>>
>>We have a number of sites. a main site has about 100+ systems with 2
>>domain
>>controllers
>>we have another site that is the head quarters of a subsidiary with 60+
>>systems
>> and also has 2 domain controllers
>>we have 2 remote sites with 10 and 20 systems respectively each with their
>>own
>>DC
>>
>>it has been mentioned to me that the 2nd DC at the site with 60+ is not
>>needed
>>(also each DC is a DNS, DHCP (with non-conficting pools) server)
>>
>>any thoughts?
>
|
|
|