Dedicated Domain Controller in Windows 2000

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dale
  • Start date Start date
D

Dale

Is it necessary to have a dedicated server as a domain
controller with Windows 2000 and Active Directory? ie. It
does nothing else

I assume because AD uses a multimaster scheme that you
cannot force one server to answer all the calls for
authentication and such anyways.
 
Depends on the size/resource use of your network, really. If it's possible
to have a DC that does nothing else, it's a good idea. It's also a good
idea to have more than one DC. And yes, you're correct AFAIK with your last
sentence.
 
25 servers, primary authentication is to eDirectory,
authentication to Windows only for select apps.
 
Addition to your last sentence,
You can actually (to a degree) use sites, weight and priority to control
which DC that will authenticate.

Regards,
/Jimmy
--
Jimmy Andersson, Q Advice AB
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
---------- www.qadvice.com ----------


"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
 
Yes, that is true - I should have been more specific. By default, it doesn't
work that way, so I didn't go into details - but thanks for correcting me!
:-)
Addition to your last sentence,
You can actually (to a degree) use sites, weight and priority to
control which DC that will authenticate.

Regards,
/Jimmy

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
Depends on the size/resource use of your network, really. If it's
possible to have a DC that does nothing else, it's a good idea. It's
also a good idea to have more than one DC. And yes, you're correct
AFAIK with your last sentence.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thx for the reply. Do you think that it would be
necessary for an environment with 25 servers all in a
centralized environment, running decent hardware,
connected at 100Mbps?
-----Original Message-----
Addition to your last sentence,
You can actually (to a degree) use sites, weight and priority to control
which DC that will authenticate.

Regards,
/Jimmy
--
Jimmy Andersson, Q Advice AB
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
---------- www.qadvice.com ----------


"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<[email protected]
wrote in message
Depends on the size/resource use of your network, really. If it's possible
to have a DC that does nothing else, it's a good idea. It's also a good
idea to have more than one DC. And yes, you're correct
Click to expand...
AFAIK with your
last
sentence.
Click to expand...


.
Click to expand...
 
Nope.

Regards,
/Jimmy
--
Jimmy Andersson, Q Advice AB
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
---------- www.qadvice.com ----------


Dale said:
Thx for the reply. Do you think that it would be
necessary for an environment with 25 servers all in a
centralized environment, running decent hardware,
connected at 100Mbps?
-----Original Message-----
Addition to your last sentence,
You can actually (to a degree) use sites, weight and priority to control
which DC that will authenticate.

Regards,
/Jimmy
--
Jimmy Andersson, Q Advice AB
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
---------- www.qadvice.com ----------


"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<[email protected]
wrote in message
Depends on the size/resource use of your network, really. If it's possible
to have a DC that does nothing else, it's a good idea. It's also a good
idea to have more than one DC. And yes, you're correct
Click to expand...
AFAIK with your
last
sentence.

Dale wrote:
Is it necessary to have a dedicated server as a domain
controller with Windows 2000 and Active Directory? ie. It
does nothing else

I assume because AD uses a multimaster scheme that you
cannot force one server to answer all the calls for
authentication and such anyways.
Click to expand...


.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hey, correcting... don't think so... I knew you knew about it! :)

Regards,
/Jimmy
--
Jimmy Andersson, Q Advice AB
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
---------- www.qadvice.com ----------


"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
Yes, that is true - I should have been more specific. By default, it doesn't
work that way, so I didn't go into details - but thanks for correcting me!
:-)
Addition to your last sentence,
You can actually (to a degree) use sites, weight and priority to
control which DC that will authenticate.

Regards,
/Jimmy

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
Depends on the size/resource use of your network, really. If it's
possible to have a DC that does nothing else, it's a good idea. It's
also a good idea to have more than one DC. And yes, you're correct
AFAIK with your last sentence.

Dale wrote:
Is it necessary to have a dedicated server as a domain
controller with Windows 2000 and Active Directory? ie. It
does nothing else

I assume because AD uses a multimaster scheme that you
cannot force one server to answer all the calls for
authentication and such anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top