Replication Topology Redesign

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I have a single forest/single domain setup with about 80 or so geographically
dispersed sites. I have my ISP's WAN topology so I know which sites are
located on the same backbone, etc. All of my sites are connected by at
minimum a T1. Currently, our AD site topology is such that there are about
10 AD Sites, which are loosely based on the geographical region that they are
located in. Obviously we have difficulty when users at one physical location
authenticate to another physical location (especially when we make a change
to one of our monolithic GPOs, which is another problem being solved by
another engineer).

My task is to redesign our AD Site topology to minimize replication latency
and authentication issues. I've got the sites listed by their location in
the ISP's WAN topology. What I have planned to do is to make each physical
locaiton a single AD site. The only thing I'm not entirely sure of is how to
design my Site Links. I had planned to identify a single fast but
not-heavily-utilized server in each geographical location and add it to a
single "Core" site link. I would then like each of the sites in each
geographical region to replicate with its closest core server. My question
then, I suppose, is should I create individual site links for each of the 75
other sites to connect back to their closest core server, or can I create a
single site link for each of the 5 or 6 geographical regions and just include
one of the core servers in that site link?

I'll try to give a quick example. Let's say I have 4 geographical regions:
N, S, E, and W. And each region has a site numbered 1-5. So I will have
servers N1-N5, S1-S5, etc. If the servers numbered 1 are my "core" servers,
I would have a single "Core" site linke with N1, S1, E1, and W1 in it. Would
I then want to create separate site links for N2-N1, N3-N1, etc. Or can I
create a single "North" site link that includes N1-N5?

Are there problems with having a bunch of servers in a single site link? Or
multiple site links that have common servers? I seem to remember somewhere
reading to only have 2 servers per site link, but that seems to me to defeat
the purpose of being able to put multiple servers per site link, which is to
avoid having to do the manual work of setting up 10 redundant site links.

Thanks for any help.
 
--
Regards,
Ace

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
Microsoft Certified Trainer

Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations

Having difficulty reading or finding responses to your post?
Instead of the website you're using, try using OEx (Outlook Express
or any other newsreader), and configure a news account, pointing to
news.microsoft.com. Anonymous access. It's free - no username or password
required nor do you need a Newsgroup Usenet account with your ISP. It
connects directly to the Microsoft Public Newsgroups. OEx allows you
o easily find, track threads, cross-post, sort by date, poster's name,
watched threads or subject. It's easy:

How to Configure OEx for Internet News
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=171164

"Quitting smoking is easy. I've done it a thousand times." - Mark TwainIn
SamF said:
I have a single forest/single domain setup with about 80 or so
geographically dispersed sites. I have my ISP's WAN topology so I
know which sites are located on the same backbone, etc. All of my
sites are connected by at minimum a T1. Currently, our AD site
topology is such that there are about 10 AD Sites, which are loosely
based on the geographical region that they are located in. Obviously
we have difficulty when users at one physical location authenticate
to another physical location (especially when we make a change to one
of our monolithic GPOs, which is another problem being solved by
another engineer).

My task is to redesign our AD Site topology to minimize replication
latency and authentication issues. I've got the sites listed by
their location in the ISP's WAN topology. What I have planned to do
is to make each physical locaiton a single AD site. The only thing
I'm not entirely sure of is how to design my Site Links. I had
planned to identify a single fast but not-heavily-utilized server in
each geographical location and add it to a single "Core" site link.
I would then like each of the sites in each geographical region to
replicate with its closest core server. My question then, I suppose,
is should I create individual site links for each of the 75 other
sites to connect back to their closest core server, or can I create a
single site link for each of the 5 or 6 geographical regions and just
include one of the core servers in that site link?

I'll try to give a quick example. Let's say I have 4 geographical
regions: N, S, E, and W. And each region has a site numbered 1-5.
So I will have servers N1-N5, S1-S5, etc. If the servers numbered 1
are my "core" servers, I would have a single "Core" site linke with
N1, S1, E1, and W1 in it. Would I then want to create separate site
links for N2-N1, N3-N1, etc. Or can I create a single "North" site
link that includes N1-N5?

Are there problems with having a bunch of servers in a single site
link? Or multiple site links that have common servers? I seem to
remember somewhere reading to only have 2 servers per site link, but
that seems to me to defeat the purpose of being able to put multiple
servers per site link, which is to avoid having to do the manual work
of setting up 10 redundant site links.

Thanks for any help.
Click to expand...

Look at the second picturm under Smart Diagramming (a cascading star
pattern, so to speak.( This link has nothing to do with Active Directory,
however when I saw the pic, I thought it matches the topology I am
thinking):
http://www.ilog.com/products/jviews/demos/index.cfm

This is more in line to what you are looking for if you have this many
sites. You have to be careful on the topology if you give it too many links
and interconnect them. If you do, the updates may get skewed or you may have
some overlap, which won't help and would rather see something in a
cascasding star pattern, as in the picture.

So what I see so far, if I can get this straight, is you would have N2-N5
all replicating to N1, which has a replication link to Central Site (which
you didn't indicate).S2-S5 replicate link back to S1, etc, then S1, N1, E1
and W1 all replicate to CentralSite. You can create bridge liks as well if
you need to ensure S5, let's say, needs to immediately replicate with
CentralSite.
 
Hello Sam,

Thank you for using newsgroup!

From your post, I'd like to thanks our MVP Ace Fekay for his kindly input.
For your questions, I'd like to suggest you refer to the following articles:
244368: How to optimize Active Directory replication in a large network
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/244368/en-us

Planning Replication for Branch Office Environments
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/windows2000serv/technologies/active
directory/deploy/adguide/adplan/adpch03.mspx?mfr=true

This appears to be mostly a consulting type question. Our Partner support
newsgroups are focused on break-fix scenarios, and as such the support we
can offer in these newsgroups for this issue is somewhat limited. I have
provided what information I can about this question, and I hope it will
help successfully address your concerns. If you would like more assistance
with this issue, please refer to the links. Thanks for understanding!

Alternative Support Venues:
=========================
- CSS Advisory Services team:

Advisory Services is a remotely delivered, hourly fee-based, consultative
support option that provides a comprehensive result beyond your break-fix
product maintenance needs. It is an hourly fee-based, consultative support
option that provides proactive support beyond your break-fix product
maintenance needs. This support option includes working with the same
technician for assistance with issues like product migration, code review,
or new program development.

For more info in the US and Canada:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=AdvisoryService

Outside of the US/Canada:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/international.aspx

Thanks & Regards,

Ken Zhao

Microsoft Online Support
Microsoft Global Technical Support Center

Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security <http://www.microsoft.com/security>
====================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
====================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.




--------------------
| Thread-Topic: Replication Topology Redesign
| thread-index: AceQ8T5U3m6b2G53SMiaAVGQlUis3w==
| X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 207.46.193.207
| From: =?Utf-8?B?U2FtRg==?= <[email protected]>
| Subject: Replication Topology Redesign
| Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 14:47:01 -0700
| Lines: 37
| Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| MIME-Version: 1.0
| Content-Type: text/plain;
| charset="Utf-8"
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
| Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
| Importance: normal
| Priority: normal
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2826
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory:1836
| NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftibfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.149
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
|
| I have a single forest/single domain setup with about 80 or so
geographically
| dispersed sites. I have my ISP's WAN topology so I know which sites are
| located on the same backbone, etc. All of my sites are connected by at
| minimum a T1. Currently, our AD site topology is such that there are
about
| 10 AD Sites, which are loosely based on the geographical region that they
are
| located in. Obviously we have difficulty when users at one physical
location
| authenticate to another physical location (especially when we make a
change
| to one of our monolithic GPOs, which is another problem being solved by
| another engineer).
|
| My task is to redesign our AD Site topology to minimize replication
latency
| and authentication issues. I've got the sites listed by their location
in
| the ISP's WAN topology. What I have planned to do is to make each
physical
| locaiton a single AD site. The only thing I'm not entirely sure of is
how to
| design my Site Links. I had planned to identify a single fast but
| not-heavily-utilized server in each geographical location and add it to a
| single "Core" site link. I would then like each of the sites in each
| geographical region to replicate with its closest core server. My
question
| then, I suppose, is should I create individual site links for each of the
75
| other sites to connect back to their closest core server, or can I create
a
| single site link for each of the 5 or 6 geographical regions and just
include
| one of the core servers in that site link?
|
| I'll try to give a quick example. Let's say I have 4 geographical
regions:
| N, S, E, and W. And each region has a site numbered 1-5. So I will have
| servers N1-N5, S1-S5, etc. If the servers numbered 1 are my "core"
servers,
| I would have a single "Core" site linke with N1, S1, E1, and W1 in it.
Would
| I then want to create separate site links for N2-N1, N3-N1, etc. Or can
I
| create a single "North" site link that includes N1-N5?
|
| Are there problems with having a bunch of servers in a single site link?
Or
| multiple site links that have common servers? I seem to remember
somewhere
| reading to only have 2 servers per site link, but that seems to me to
defeat
| the purpose of being able to put multiple servers per site link, which is
to
| avoid having to do the manual work of setting up 10 redundant site links.
|
| Thanks for any help.
|
 
Hi Sam,

I am just writing to see how everything is going. If you have any updates
or need any further assistance on this issue, please feel free to let me
know.

Thanks & Regards,

Ken Zhao

Microsoft Online Support
Microsoft Global Technical Support Center

Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security <http://www.microsoft.com/security>
====================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
====================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.




--------------------
| X-Tomcat-ID: 159733952
| References: <[email protected]>
| MIME-Version: 1.0
| Content-Type: text/plain
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| From: (e-mail address removed) ("Ken Zhao [MSFT]")
| Organization: Microsoft
| Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 09:47:33 GMT
| Subject: RE: Replication Topology Redesign
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| Lines: 144
| Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory:1839
| NNTP-Posting-Host: TOMCATIMPORT1 10.201.218.122
|
| Hello Sam,
|
| Thank you for using newsgroup!
|
| From your post, I'd like to thanks our MVP Ace Fekay for his kindly
input.
| For your questions, I'd like to suggest you refer to the following
articles:
| 244368: How to optimize Active Directory replication in a large network
| http://support.microsoft.com/kb/244368/en-us
|
| Planning Replication for Branch Office Environments
|
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/windows2000serv/technologies/active
| directory/deploy/adguide/adplan/adpch03.mspx?mfr=true
|
| This appears to be mostly a consulting type question. Our Partner support
| newsgroups are focused on break-fix scenarios, and as such the support we
| can offer in these newsgroups for this issue is somewhat limited. I have
| provided what information I can about this question, and I hope it will
| help successfully address your concerns. If you would like more
assistance
| with this issue, please refer to the links. Thanks for understanding!
|
| Alternative Support Venues:
| =========================
| - CSS Advisory Services team:
|
| Advisory Services is a remotely delivered, hourly fee-based, consultative
| support option that provides a comprehensive result beyond your break-fix
| product maintenance needs. It is an hourly fee-based, consultative
support
| option that provides proactive support beyond your break-fix product
| maintenance needs. This support option includes working with the same
| technician for assistance with issues like product migration, code
review,
| or new program development.
|
| For more info in the US and Canada:
| http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=AdvisoryService
|
| Outside of the US/Canada:
| http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/international.aspx
|
| Thanks & Regards,
|
| Ken Zhao
|
| Microsoft Online Support
| Microsoft Global Technical Support Center
|
| Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
<http://www.microsoft.com/security>
| ====================================================
| When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
| that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
| ====================================================
| This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
|
|
|
|
| --------------------
| | Thread-Topic: Replication Topology Redesign
| | thread-index: AceQ8T5U3m6b2G53SMiaAVGQlUis3w==
| | X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 207.46.193.207
| | From: =?Utf-8?B?U2FtRg==?= <[email protected]>
| | Subject: Replication Topology Redesign
| | Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 14:47:01 -0700
| | Lines: 37
| | Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| | MIME-Version: 1.0
| | Content-Type: text/plain;
| | charset="Utf-8"
| | Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| | X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
| | Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
| | Importance: normal
| | Priority: normal
| | X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2826
| | Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| | Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
| | Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
| microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory:1836
| | NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftibfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.149
| | X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| |
| | I have a single forest/single domain setup with about 80 or so
| geographically
| | dispersed sites. I have my ISP's WAN topology so I know which sites
are
| | located on the same backbone, etc. All of my sites are connected by at
| | minimum a T1. Currently, our AD site topology is such that there are
| about
| | 10 AD Sites, which are loosely based on the geographical region that
they
| are
| | located in. Obviously we have difficulty when users at one physical
| location
| | authenticate to another physical location (especially when we make a
| change
| | to one of our monolithic GPOs, which is another problem being solved by
| | another engineer).
| |
| | My task is to redesign our AD Site topology to minimize replication
| latency
| | and authentication issues. I've got the sites listed by their location
| in
| | the ISP's WAN topology. What I have planned to do is to make each
| physical
| | locaiton a single AD site. The only thing I'm not entirely sure of is
| how to
| | design my Site Links. I had planned to identify a single fast but
| | not-heavily-utilized server in each geographical location and add it to
a
| | single "Core" site link. I would then like each of the sites in each
| | geographical region to replicate with its closest core server. My
| question
| | then, I suppose, is should I create individual site links for each of
the
| 75
| | other sites to connect back to their closest core server, or can I
create
| a
| | single site link for each of the 5 or 6 geographical regions and just
| include
| | one of the core servers in that site link?
| |
| | I'll try to give a quick example. Let's say I have 4 geographical
| regions:
| | N, S, E, and W. And each region has a site numbered 1-5. So I will
have
| | servers N1-N5, S1-S5, etc. If the servers numbered 1 are my "core"
| servers,
| | I would have a single "Core" site linke with N1, S1, E1, and W1 in it.
| Would
| | I then want to create separate site links for N2-N1, N3-N1, etc. Or
can
| I
| | create a single "North" site link that includes N1-N5?
| |
| | Are there problems with having a bunch of servers in a single site
link?
| Or
| | multiple site links that have common servers? I seem to remember
| somewhere
| | reading to only have 2 servers per site link, but that seems to me to
| defeat
| | the purpose of being able to put multiple servers per site link, which
is
| to
| | avoid having to do the manual work of setting up 10 redundant site
links.
| |
| | Thanks for any help.
| |
|
|
 
Good, thanks. I've developed my topology design to reflect our MPLS-routed
network and I've submitted the design to our Change Management review team.
If approved I'm going to begin implementing the changes with a few of our
branch offices to prove out my design.

The only question I had that I wasn't able to find an explicit answer to is,
if there are multiple sites within a single site link, are they all
automatically connected to each other? I know that within a site, KCC
connects the DCs in a ring topology with extra links for sites of more than 7
servers. Does it work the same for a single site link? Right now I am
planning on creating a large number of site links to connect my 5 or 6 "core"
sites. But if I can place them in a single site link and have them all
interconnected, that would make things a bit more manageable.

Thanks for the responses.

Sam

"Ken Zhao [MSFT]" said:
Hi Sam,

I am just writing to see how everything is going. If you have any updates
or need any further assistance on this issue, please feel free to let me
know.

Thanks & Regards,

Ken Zhao

Microsoft Online Support
Microsoft Global Technical Support Center

Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security <http://www.microsoft.com/security>
====================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
====================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.




--------------------
| X-Tomcat-ID: 159733952
| References: <[email protected]>
| MIME-Version: 1.0
| Content-Type: text/plain
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| From: (e-mail address removed) ("Ken Zhao [MSFT]")
| Organization: Microsoft
| Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 09:47:33 GMT
| Subject: RE: Replication Topology Redesign
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| Lines: 144
| Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory:1839
| NNTP-Posting-Host: TOMCATIMPORT1 10.201.218.122
|
| Hello Sam,
|
| Thank you for using newsgroup!
|
| From your post, I'd like to thanks our MVP Ace Fekay for his kindly
input.
| For your questions, I'd like to suggest you refer to the following
articles:
| 244368: How to optimize Active Directory replication in a large network
| http://support.microsoft.com/kb/244368/en-us
|
| Planning Replication for Branch Office Environments
|
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/windows2000serv/technologies/active
| directory/deploy/adguide/adplan/adpch03.mspx?mfr=true
|
| This appears to be mostly a consulting type question. Our Partner support
| newsgroups are focused on break-fix scenarios, and as such the support we
| can offer in these newsgroups for this issue is somewhat limited. I have
| provided what information I can about this question, and I hope it will
| help successfully address your concerns. If you would like more
assistance
| with this issue, please refer to the links. Thanks for understanding!
|
| Alternative Support Venues:
| =========================
| - CSS Advisory Services team:
|
| Advisory Services is a remotely delivered, hourly fee-based, consultative
| support option that provides a comprehensive result beyond your break-fix
| product maintenance needs. It is an hourly fee-based, consultative
support
| option that provides proactive support beyond your break-fix product
| maintenance needs. This support option includes working with the same
| technician for assistance with issues like product migration, code
review,
| or new program development.
|
| For more info in the US and Canada:
| http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=AdvisoryService
|
| Outside of the US/Canada:
| http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/international.aspx
|
| Thanks & Regards,
|
| Ken Zhao
|
| Microsoft Online Support
| Microsoft Global Technical Support Center
|
| Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
<http://www.microsoft.com/security>
| ====================================================
| When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
| that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
| ====================================================
| This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
|
|
|
|
| --------------------
| | Thread-Topic: Replication Topology Redesign
| | thread-index: AceQ8T5U3m6b2G53SMiaAVGQlUis3w==
| | X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 207.46.193.207
| | From: =?Utf-8?B?U2FtRg==?= <[email protected]>
| | Subject: Replication Topology Redesign
| | Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 14:47:01 -0700
| | Lines: 37
| | Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| | MIME-Version: 1.0
| | Content-Type: text/plain;
| | charset="Utf-8"
| | Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| | X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
| | Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
| | Importance: normal
| | Priority: normal
| | X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2826
| | Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| | Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
| | Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
| microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory:1836
| | NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftibfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.149
| | X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| |
| | I have a single forest/single domain setup with about 80 or so
| geographically
| | dispersed sites. I have my ISP's WAN topology so I know which sites
are
| | located on the same backbone, etc. All of my sites are connected by at
| | minimum a T1. Currently, our AD site topology is such that there are
| about
| | 10 AD Sites, which are loosely based on the geographical region that
they
| are
| | located in. Obviously we have difficulty when users at one physical
| location
| | authenticate to another physical location (especially when we make a
| change
| | to one of our monolithic GPOs, which is another problem being solved by
| | another engineer).
| |
| | My task is to redesign our AD Site topology to minimize replication
| latency
| | and authentication issues. I've got the sites listed by their location
| in
| | the ISP's WAN topology. What I have planned to do is to make each
| physical
| | locaiton a single AD site. The only thing I'm not entirely sure of is
| how to
| | design my Site Links. I had planned to identify a single fast but
| | not-heavily-utilized server in each geographical location and add it to
a
| | single "Core" site link. I would then like each of the sites in each
| | geographical region to replicate with its closest core server. My
| question
| | then, I suppose, is should I create individual site links for each of
the
| 75
| | other sites to connect back to their closest core server, or can I
create
| a
| | single site link for each of the 5 or 6 geographical regions and just
| include
| | one of the core servers in that site link?
| |
| | I'll try to give a quick example. Let's say I have 4 geographical
| regions:
| | N, S, E, and W. And each region has a site numbered 1-5. So I will
have
| | servers N1-N5, S1-S5, etc. If the servers numbered 1 are my "core"
| servers,
| | I would have a single "Core" site linke with N1, S1, E1, and W1 in it.
| Would
| | I then want to create separate site links for N2-N1, N3-N1, etc. Or
can
| I
| | create a single "North" site link that includes N1-N5?
| |
| | Are there problems with having a bunch of servers in a single site
link?
| Or
| | multiple site links that have common servers? I seem to remember
| somewhere
| | reading to only have 2 servers per site link, but that seems to me to
| defeat
| | the purpose of being able to put multiple servers per site link, which
is
| to
| | avoid having to do the manual work of setting up 10 redundant site
links.
| |
| | Thanks for any help.
| |
|
|
Click to expand...
 
In
SamF said:
Good, thanks. I've developed my topology design to reflect our
MPLS-routed network and I've submitted the design to our Change
Management review team. If approved I'm going to begin implementing
the changes with a few of our branch offices to prove out my design.

The only question I had that I wasn't able to find an explicit answer
to is, if there are multiple sites within a single site link, are
they all automatically connected to each other? I know that within a
site, KCC connects the DCs in a ring topology with extra links for
sites of more than 7 servers. Does it work the same for a single
site link? Right now I am planning on creating a large number of
site links to connect my 5 or 6 "core" sites. But if I can place
them in a single site link and have them all interconnected, that
would make things a bit more manageable.

Thanks for the responses.

Sam
Click to expand...

No, site links are not automatically evaluated for best partnerships as the
KCC for intrasite replication. The KCC within a site optimizes the
partnerships between DCs (so no two DCs will have a replication lag longer
than 15 minutes, and 5 minutes minimum between DC partners. Therefore if any
DCs cannot replicate to another DC within 15 minutes, the KCC rearranges the
partnerships to make it so. Intersite you have to do it manually with 15
minutes as the minimum.

You can use the default site link, which encompasses all if you like, or
just create your own to customize the connections.

Ace
 
Thanks Ace.

Thanks & Regards,

Ken Zhao

Microsoft Online Support
Microsoft Global Technical Support Center

Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security <http://www.microsoft.com/security>
====================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
====================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.





--------------------
| From: "Ace Fekay [MVP]" <[email protected]>
| References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
| Subject: Re: Replication Topology Redesign
| Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 00:07:42 -0400
| Lines: 35
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2826
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2826
| X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
| Message-ID: <eeo#[email protected]>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| NNTP-Posting-Host: static-72-94-181-34.phlapa.fios.verizon.net
72.94.181.34
| Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory:1849
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
|
| In | SamF <[email protected]> typed:
| > Good, thanks. I've developed my topology design to reflect our
| > MPLS-routed network and I've submitted the design to our Change
| > Management review team. If approved I'm going to begin implementing
| > the changes with a few of our branch offices to prove out my design.
| >
| > The only question I had that I wasn't able to find an explicit answer
| > to is, if there are multiple sites within a single site link, are
| > they all automatically connected to each other? I know that within a
| > site, KCC connects the DCs in a ring topology with extra links for
| > sites of more than 7 servers. Does it work the same for a single
| > site link? Right now I am planning on creating a large number of
| > site links to connect my 5 or 6 "core" sites. But if I can place
| > them in a single site link and have them all interconnected, that
| > would make things a bit more manageable.
| >
| > Thanks for the responses.
| >
| > Sam
|
| No, site links are not automatically evaluated for best partnerships as
the
| KCC for intrasite replication. The KCC within a site optimizes the
| partnerships between DCs (so no two DCs will have a replication lag
longer
| than 15 minutes, and 5 minutes minimum between DC partners. Therefore if
any
| DCs cannot replicate to another DC within 15 minutes, the KCC rearranges
the
| partnerships to make it so. Intersite you have to do it manually with 15
| minutes as the minimum.
|
| You can use the default site link, which encompasses all if you like, or
| just create your own to customize the connections.
|
| Ace
|
|
|
 
Back
Top