Forum Search:
Forum.Brain-Cluster.com: Brain Cluster Technical Forum
Ultimate forum for Technical Discussions

Home » Microsoft » Windows Server » Active Directory » Please Clarify
Please Clarify [message #290912] Mon, 19 October 2009 14:12 Go to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
Guys,
If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003 Functional
Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C connects to B and then B
connects to A. C->B->A
First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume that
matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make contact with A
[(eventually) Please tell me why they need to]., because of the FSMO roles,
even though A, B & C are all Global Catalogs.
If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the perceived
benefits.
P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly complicated
that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag, etc finds a number of
errors. However, I'm just trying to get you guys opinions.
Thanks

"Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
Re: Please Clarify [message #291096 is a reply to message #290912] Mon, 19 October 2009 17:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Marcin  is currently offline Marcin  United States
Messages: 273
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
That would depend on the underlying network infrastructure. Does it reflect
your AD site design (i.e. there is no direct communication between site A
and C)?
DCs need to be able to communicate with Operation Masters. For the reasons,
refer to http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc780487.aspx

hth
Marcin


"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:eJgW$hPUKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Guys,
> If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003 Functional
> Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C connects to B and then
> B connects to A. C->B->A
> First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
> Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume that
> matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make contact with
> A [(eventually) Please tell me why they need to]., because of the FSMO
> roles, even though A, B & C are all Global Catalogs.
> If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the
> perceived benefits.
> P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly complicated
> that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag, etc finds a number
> of errors. However, I'm just trying to get you guys opinions.
> Thanks
>
> "Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291449 is a reply to message #290912] Tue, 20 October 2009 02:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:eJgW$hPUKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Guys,
> If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003 Functional
> Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C connects to B and then
> B connects to A. C->B->A
> First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
> Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume that
> matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make contact with
> A [(eventually) Please tell me why they need to]., because of the FSMO
> roles, even though A, B & C are all Global Catalogs.
> If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the
> perceived benefits.
> P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly complicated
> that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag, etc finds a number
> of errors. However, I'm just trying to get you guys opinions.
> Thanks
>
> "Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
>


As Marcin stated, you definitely need communications between A and C. I
recommend a mesh topology, or at least routing to allow traffic from A to C
to communicate, otherwise, I can imagine what the event logs look like and
the danger of losing some AD functionality.

--
Ace

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

Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit among
responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your resolution.

Ace Fekay, MCT, MCITP EA, MCTS Windows 2008 & Exchange 2007, MCSE & MCSA
2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
Microsoft Certified Trainer

For urgent issues, please contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check
http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.
Re: Please Clarify [message #291558 is a reply to message #290912] Tue, 20 October 2009 06:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pbbergs  is currently offline pbbergs  United States
Messages: 1024
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
If routing is properly configured and the "Bridge All Site Links" is enabled
(By default), site A can talk to site C already. Was the replication
topology you have described manually configured by yourself? If so, just
let KCC configure for you. If you delete the site links and give it some
time (Maybe an hour or two) it will auto reconfigure. The B site doesn't
need to be the fsmo role holder if you want to give it a hub and spoke
topology, by the way.

--
Paul Bergson
MVP - Directory Services
MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009

http://www.pbbergs.com

Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:eJgW$hPUKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Guys,
> If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003 Functional
> Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C connects to B and then
> B connects to A. C->B->A
> First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
> Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume that
> matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make contact with
> A [(eventually) Please tell me why they need to]., because of the FSMO
> roles, even though A, B & C are all Global Catalogs.
> If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the
> perceived benefits.
> P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly complicated
> that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag, etc finds a number
> of errors. However, I'm just trying to get you guys opinions.
> Thanks
>
> "Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291592 is a reply to message #291096] Tue, 20 October 2009 06:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
hth,
The all communicate. The network is fully routed, so there is communication
between A&C. In most cases, the AD site topology is reflective of the
physical design



"Marcin" <marcin@community.nospam> wrote in message
news:elgO7GRUKHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That would depend on the underlying network infrastructure. Does it
> reflect your AD site design (i.e. there is no direct communication between
> site A and C)?
> DCs need to be able to communicate with Operation Masters. For the
> reasons, refer to http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc780487.aspx
>
> hth
> Marcin
>
>
> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:eJgW$hPUKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Guys,
>> If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003 Functional
>> Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C connects to B and then
>> B connects to A. C->B->A
>> First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
>> Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume that
>> matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make contact with
>> A [(eventually) Please tell me why they need to]., because of the FSMO
>> roles, even though A, B & C are all Global Catalogs.
>> If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the
>> perceived benefits.
>> P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly complicated
>> that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag, etc finds a number
>> of errors. However, I'm just trying to get you guys opinions.
>> Thanks
>>
>> "Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
>>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291593 is a reply to message #291449] Tue, 20 October 2009 06:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
We have more than three sites and a full mesh topology even though sounds
like a good recommendation, I don't think it will work best in this case. I
can be wrong.

"Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
news:Om9RWvVUKHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:eJgW$hPUKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Guys,
>> If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003 Functional
>> Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C connects to B and then
>> B connects to A. C->B->A
>> First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
>> Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume that
>> matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make contact with
>> A [(eventually) Please tell me why they need to]., because of the FSMO
>> roles, even though A, B & C are all Global Catalogs.
>> If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the
>> perceived benefits.
>> P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly complicated
>> that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag, etc finds a number
>> of errors. However, I'm just trying to get you guys opinions.
>> Thanks
>>
>> "Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
>>
>
>
> As Marcin stated, you definitely need communications between A and C. I
> recommend a mesh topology, or at least routing to allow traffic from A to
> C to communicate, otherwise, I can imagine what the event logs look like
> and the danger of losing some AD functionality.
>
> --
> Ace
>
> This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
> confers no rights.
>
> Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit
> among responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your
> resolution.
>
> Ace Fekay, MCT, MCITP EA, MCTS Windows 2008 & Exchange 2007, MCSE & MCSA
> 2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
> Microsoft Certified Trainer
>
> For urgent issues, please contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check
> http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291599 is a reply to message #291558] Tue, 20 October 2009 06:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
Paul,
Bridge all Site links is enabled. The replication topology was manually
configured by someone else, its current state is more like a partial mesh
with one way replication in some instances. The current design also has some
manuall created AD Connections. I used the ABC analogy to give a basic idea.
In addition, your thought is what I had in mind. I was thinking build the
site links establish Site A as the hub. This would mean 1 site link for A&B
and 1 site Link for A&C. Then let the KCC do its thing instead of adding
additional Active Directory connections. Do you agree with this?


"Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
news:ebDwV9XUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> If routing is properly configured and the "Bridge All Site Links" is
> enabled (By default), site A can talk to site C already. Was the
> replication topology you have described manually configured by yourself?
> If so, just let KCC configure for you. If you delete the site links and
> give it some time (Maybe an hour or two) it will auto reconfigure. The B
> site doesn't need to be the fsmo role holder if you want to give it a hub
> and spoke topology, by the way.
>
> --
> Paul Bergson
> MVP - Directory Services
> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>
> http://www.pbbergs.com
>
> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:eJgW$hPUKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Guys,
>> If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003 Functional
>> Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C connects to B and then
>> B connects to A. C->B->A
>> First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
>> Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume that
>> matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make contact with
>> A [(eventually) Please tell me why they need to]., because of the FSMO
>> roles, even though A, B & C are all Global Catalogs.
>> If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the
>> perceived benefits.
>> P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly complicated
>> that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag, etc finds a number
>> of errors. However, I'm just trying to get you guys opinions.
>> Thanks
>>
>> "Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
>>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291632 is a reply to message #291599] Tue, 20 October 2009 07:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pbbergs  is currently offline pbbergs  United States
Messages: 1024
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
As long as the network supports it, yes.

--
Paul Bergson
MVP - Directory Services
MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009

http://www.pbbergs.com

Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:Olqf8QYUKHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Paul,
> Bridge all Site links is enabled. The replication topology was manually
> configured by someone else, its current state is more like a partial mesh
> with one way replication in some instances. The current design also has
> some manuall created AD Connections. I used the ABC analogy to give a
> basic idea. In addition, your thought is what I had in mind. I was
> thinking build the site links establish Site A as the hub. This would mean
> 1 site link for A&B and 1 site Link for A&C. Then let the KCC do its thing
> instead of adding additional Active Directory connections. Do you agree
> with this?
>
>
> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
> news:ebDwV9XUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> If routing is properly configured and the "Bridge All Site Links" is
>> enabled (By default), site A can talk to site C already. Was the
>> replication topology you have described manually configured by yourself?
>> If so, just let KCC configure for you. If you delete the site links and
>> give it some time (Maybe an hour or two) it will auto reconfigure. The B
>> site doesn't need to be the fsmo role holder if you want to give it a hub
>> and spoke topology, by the way.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Bergson
>> MVP - Directory Services
>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>>
>> http://www.pbbergs.com
>>
>> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
>> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>
>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>> news:eJgW$hPUKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Guys,
>>> If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003 Functional
>>> Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C connects to B and
>>> then B connects to A. C->B->A
>>> First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
>>> Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume that
>>> matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make contact
>>> with A [(eventually) Please tell me why they need to]., because of the
>>> FSMO roles, even though A, B & C are all Global Catalogs.
>>> If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the
>>> perceived benefits.
>>> P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly
>>> complicated that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag, etc
>>> finds a number of errors. However, I'm just trying to get you guys
>>> opinions.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> "Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291634 is a reply to message #291632] Tue, 20 October 2009 07:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
Yes it does.
Thanks Guys

"Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
news:eiUM7aYUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> As long as the network supports it, yes.
>
> --
> Paul Bergson
> MVP - Directory Services
> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>
> http://www.pbbergs.com
>
> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:Olqf8QYUKHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Paul,
>> Bridge all Site links is enabled. The replication topology was manually
>> configured by someone else, its current state is more like a partial mesh
>> with one way replication in some instances. The current design also has
>> some manuall created AD Connections. I used the ABC analogy to give a
>> basic idea. In addition, your thought is what I had in mind. I was
>> thinking build the site links establish Site A as the hub. This would
>> mean 1 site link for A&B and 1 site Link for A&C. Then let the KCC do its
>> thing instead of adding additional Active Directory connections. Do you
>> agree with this?
>>
>>
>> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
>> news:ebDwV9XUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> If routing is properly configured and the "Bridge All Site Links" is
>>> enabled (By default), site A can talk to site C already. Was the
>>> replication topology you have described manually configured by yourself?
>>> If so, just let KCC configure for you. If you delete the site links and
>>> give it some time (Maybe an hour or two) it will auto reconfigure. The
>>> B site doesn't need to be the fsmo role holder if you want to give it a
>>> hub and spoke topology, by the way.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul Bergson
>>> MVP - Directory Services
>>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>>> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>>>
>>> http://www.pbbergs.com
>>>
>>> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
>>> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>>
>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>> news:eJgW$hPUKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Guys,
>>>> If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003 Functional
>>>> Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C connects to B and
>>>> then B connects to A. C->B->A
>>>> First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
>>>> Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume that
>>>> matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make contact
>>>> with A [(eventually) Please tell me why they need to]., because of the
>>>> FSMO roles, even though A, B & C are all Global Catalogs.
>>>> If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the
>>>> perceived benefits.
>>>> P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly
>>>> complicated that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag, etc
>>>> finds a number of errors. However, I'm just trying to get you guys
>>>> opinions.
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> "Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291772 is a reply to message #291634] Tue, 20 October 2009 09:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:udvzwdYUKHA.2836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Nik,

Is this the same network you are working on the migration with? If so, I
would definitely get this straightened out first, prior to the migration.
And I agree with you and Paul, that a star (hub and spoke) would work.

Ace

> Yes it does.
> Thanks Guys
>
> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
> news:eiUM7aYUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> As long as the network supports it, yes.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Bergson
>> MVP - Directory Services
>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>>
>> http://www.pbbergs.com
>>
>> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
>> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>
>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>> news:Olqf8QYUKHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Paul,
>>> Bridge all Site links is enabled. The replication topology was manually
>>> configured by someone else, its current state is more like a partial
>>> mesh with one way replication in some instances. The current design also
>>> has some manuall created AD Connections. I used the ABC analogy to give
>>> a basic idea. In addition, your thought is what I had in mind. I was
>>> thinking build the site links establish Site A as the hub. This would
>>> mean 1 site link for A&B and 1 site Link for A&C. Then let the KCC do
>>> its thing instead of adding additional Active Directory connections. Do
>>> you agree with this?
>>>
>>>
>>> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ebDwV9XUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> If routing is properly configured and the "Bridge All Site Links" is
>>>> enabled (By default), site A can talk to site C already. Was the
>>>> replication topology you have described manually configured by
>>>> yourself? If so, just let KCC configure for you. If you delete the
>>>> site links and give it some time (Maybe an hour or two) it will auto
>>>> reconfigure. The B site doesn't need to be the fsmo role holder if you
>>>> want to give it a hub and spoke topology, by the way.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Paul Bergson
>>>> MVP - Directory Services
>>>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>>>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>>>> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pbbergs.com
>>>>
>>>> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
>>>> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>>>
>>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>>> news:eJgW$hPUKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Guys,
>>>>> If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003 Functional
>>>>> Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C connects to B and
>>>>> then B connects to A. C->B->A
>>>>> First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
>>>>> Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume that
>>>>> matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make contact
>>>>> with A [(eventually) Please tell me why they need to]., because of the
>>>>> FSMO roles, even though A, B & C are all Global Catalogs.
>>>>> If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the
>>>>> perceived benefits.
>>>>> P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly
>>>>> complicated that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag, etc
>>>>> finds a number of errors. However, I'm just trying to get you guys
>>>>> opinions.
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> "Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291807 is a reply to message #291772] Tue, 20 October 2009 09:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
Ace thanks for your confirmation also. Its the same network and I agree with
you also about straithening this out first. I consider this a major issue
before attempting to incorporate the aquired company into this existing one.
Because if this is not fixed all we will be doing is adding more problems
ontop of the existing ones.


"Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
news:%23A9rKiZUKHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:udvzwdYUKHA.2836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> Nik,
>
> Is this the same network you are working on the migration with? If so, I
> would definitely get this straightened out first, prior to the migration.
> And I agree with you and Paul, that a star (hub and spoke) would work.
>
> Ace
>
>> Yes it does.
>> Thanks Guys
>>
>> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
>> news:eiUM7aYUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> As long as the network supports it, yes.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul Bergson
>>> MVP - Directory Services
>>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>>> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>>>
>>> http://www.pbbergs.com
>>>
>>> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
>>> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>>
>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>> news:Olqf8QYUKHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Paul,
>>>> Bridge all Site links is enabled. The replication topology was manually
>>>> configured by someone else, its current state is more like a partial
>>>> mesh with one way replication in some instances. The current design
>>>> also has some manuall created AD Connections. I used the ABC analogy to
>>>> give a basic idea. In addition, your thought is what I had in mind. I
>>>> was thinking build the site links establish Site A as the hub. This
>>>> would mean 1 site link for A&B and 1 site Link for A&C. Then let the
>>>> KCC do its thing instead of adding additional Active Directory
>>>> connections. Do you agree with this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ebDwV9XUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> If routing is properly configured and the "Bridge All Site Links" is
>>>>> enabled (By default), site A can talk to site C already. Was the
>>>>> replication topology you have described manually configured by
>>>>> yourself? If so, just let KCC configure for you. If you delete the
>>>>> site links and give it some time (Maybe an hour or two) it will auto
>>>>> reconfigure. The B site doesn't need to be the fsmo role holder if
>>>>> you want to give it a hub and spoke topology, by the way.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Paul Bergson
>>>>> MVP - Directory Services
>>>>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>>>>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>>>>> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.pbbergs.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup
>>>>> This
>>>>> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eJgW$hPUKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>> If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003 Functional
>>>>>> Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C connects to B and
>>>>>> then B connects to A. C->B->A
>>>>>> First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
>>>>>> Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume that
>>>>>> matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make contact
>>>>>> with A [(eventually) Please tell me why they need to]., because of
>>>>>> the FSMO roles, even though A, B & C are all Global Catalogs.
>>>>>> If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the
>>>>>> perceived benefits.
>>>>>> P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly
>>>>>> complicated that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag,
>>>>>> etc finds a number of errors. However, I'm just trying to get you
>>>>>> guys opinions.
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291821 is a reply to message #291807] Tue, 20 October 2009 09:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:%23qVHIpZUKHA.3720@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

You said it better than I did! You got your work cut out for you...

Ace

> Ace thanks for your confirmation also. Its the same network and I agree
> with you also about straithening this out first. I consider this a major
> issue before attempting to incorporate the aquired company into this
> existing one. Because if this is not fixed all we will be doing is adding
> more problems ontop of the existing ones.
>
>
> "Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
> news:%23A9rKiZUKHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>> news:udvzwdYUKHA.2836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Nik,
>>
>> Is this the same network you are working on the migration with? If so, I
>> would definitely get this straightened out first, prior to the migration.
>> And I agree with you and Paul, that a star (hub and spoke) would work.
>>
>> Ace
>>
>>> Yes it does.
>>> Thanks Guys
>>>
>>> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eiUM7aYUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> As long as the network supports it, yes.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Paul Bergson
>>>> MVP - Directory Services
>>>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>>>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>>>> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pbbergs.com
>>>>
>>>> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
>>>> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>>>
>>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>>> news:Olqf8QYUKHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Paul,
>>>>> Bridge all Site links is enabled. The replication topology was
>>>>> manually configured by someone else, its current state is more like a
>>>>> partial mesh with one way replication in some instances. The current
>>>>> design also has some manuall created AD Connections. I used the ABC
>>>>> analogy to give a basic idea. In addition, your thought is what I had
>>>>> in mind. I was thinking build the site links establish Site A as the
>>>>> hub. This would mean 1 site link for A&B and 1 site Link for A&C. Then
>>>>> let the KCC do its thing instead of adding additional Active Directory
>>>>> connections. Do you agree with this?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ebDwV9XUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> If routing is properly configured and the "Bridge All Site Links" is
>>>>>> enabled (By default), site A can talk to site C already. Was the
>>>>>> replication topology you have described manually configured by
>>>>>> yourself? If so, just let KCC configure for you. If you delete the
>>>>>> site links and give it some time (Maybe an hour or two) it will auto
>>>>>> reconfigure. The B site doesn't need to be the fsmo role holder if
>>>>>> you want to give it a hub and spoke topology, by the way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Paul Bergson
>>>>>> MVP - Directory Services
>>>>>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>>>>>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>>>>>> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.pbbergs.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:eJgW$hPUKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>> If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003
>>>>>>> Functional Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C
>>>>>>> connects to B and then B connects to A. C->B->A
>>>>>>> First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
>>>>>>> Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume
>>>>>>> that matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make
>>>>>>> contact with A [(eventually) Please tell me why they need to].,
>>>>>>> because of the FSMO roles, even though A, B & C are all Global
>>>>>>> Catalogs.
>>>>>>> If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the
>>>>>>> perceived benefits.
>>>>>>> P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly
>>>>>>> complicated that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag,
>>>>>>> etc finds a number of errors. However, I'm just trying to get you
>>>>>>> guys opinions.
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291839 is a reply to message #291821] Tue, 20 October 2009 09:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
Ace,
I have two DCs in the hub site one holds the FSMO (DC1) and the other is the
secondary (DC2). I wish to use both of these as bridgehead servers but would
like to assign some sites to replicate to DC1 and some to DC2 in the hub,
instead of one bridgehead server. I've decided on this because the DC1 will
already be busy with the FSMO roles, so I was thinking reduce its
replication partners, while increasing DC2. Any thoughts on that? If you do,
I know how to designate a server as a bridgehead, but will I be able to
designate it for certain partners?



"Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
news:u$nNEvZUKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
> news:%23qVHIpZUKHA.3720@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> You said it better than I did! You got your work cut out for you...
>
> Ace
>
>> Ace thanks for your confirmation also. Its the same network and I agree
>> with you also about straithening this out first. I consider this a major
>> issue before attempting to incorporate the aquired company into this
>> existing one. Because if this is not fixed all we will be doing is adding
>> more problems ontop of the existing ones.
>>
>>
>> "Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
>> news:%23A9rKiZUKHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>> news:udvzwdYUKHA.2836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> Nik,
>>>
>>> Is this the same network you are working on the migration with? If so, I
>>> would definitely get this straightened out first, prior to the
>>> migration. And I agree with you and Paul, that a star (hub and spoke)
>>> would work.
>>>
>>> Ace
>>>
>>>> Yes it does.
>>>> Thanks Guys
>>>>
>>>> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:eiUM7aYUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> As long as the network supports it, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Paul Bergson
>>>>> MVP - Directory Services
>>>>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>>>>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>>>>> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.pbbergs.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup
>>>>> This
>>>>> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Olqf8QYUKHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>> Bridge all Site links is enabled. The replication topology was
>>>>>> manually configured by someone else, its current state is more like a
>>>>>> partial mesh with one way replication in some instances. The current
>>>>>> design also has some manuall created AD Connections. I used the ABC
>>>>>> analogy to give a basic idea. In addition, your thought is what I had
>>>>>> in mind. I was thinking build the site links establish Site A as the
>>>>>> hub. This would mean 1 site link for A&B and 1 site Link for A&C.
>>>>>> Then let the KCC do its thing instead of adding additional Active
>>>>>> Directory connections. Do you agree with this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ebDwV9XUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> If routing is properly configured and the "Bridge All Site Links" is
>>>>>>> enabled (By default), site A can talk to site C already. Was the
>>>>>>> replication topology you have described manually configured by
>>>>>>> yourself? If so, just let KCC configure for you. If you delete the
>>>>>>> site links and give it some time (Maybe an hour or two) it will auto
>>>>>>> reconfigure. The B site doesn't need to be the fsmo role holder if
>>>>>>> you want to give it a hub and spoke topology, by the way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Paul Bergson
>>>>>>> MVP - Directory Services
>>>>>>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>>>>>>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>>>>>>> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.pbbergs.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:eJgW$hPUKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>> If I have site A, B and C. Site A has the FSMO roles (2003
>>>>>>>> Functional Levels). The design is not a hub and spoke. Site C
>>>>>>>> connects to B and then B connects to A. C->B->A
>>>>>>>> First, please tell me what you see wrong with this design
>>>>>>>> Second, knowing that the FSMO role is at site A, should I assume
>>>>>>>> that matters not matter what C & B does, they still needs to make
>>>>>>>> contact with A [(eventually) Please tell me why they need to].,
>>>>>>>> because of the FSMO roles, even though A, B & C are all Global
>>>>>>>> Catalogs.
>>>>>>>> If I plan to move it to a Hub and Spoke B->A and C-> what are the
>>>>>>>> perceived benefits.
>>>>>>>> P.S. I already plan to move it because the topology is overly
>>>>>>>> complicated that running tools such as repldiag, repadmin, dcdiag,
>>>>>>>> etc finds a number of errors. However, I'm just trying to get you
>>>>>>>> guys opinions.
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Even a Genius Ask Questions!!!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291900 is a reply to message #291839] Tue, 20 October 2009 10:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:OCk341ZUKHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Ace,
> I have two DCs in the hub site one holds the FSMO (DC1) and the other is
> the secondary (DC2). I wish to use both of these as bridgehead servers but
> would like to assign some sites to replicate to DC1 and some to DC2 in the
> hub, instead of one bridgehead server. I've decided on this because the
> DC1 will already be busy with the FSMO roles, so I was thinking reduce its
> replication partners, while increasing DC2. Any thoughts on that? If you
> do, I know how to designate a server as a bridgehead, but will I be able
> to designate it for certain partners?
>

Well, yes, you can do that, that is have multiple bridgeheads in a Site. To
designate partners manually, you will have to delete the KCC generated
replication partners, and manually create your own based on the design you
come up with that you feel will be better or appropriate for your network.

Ace
Re: Please Clarify [message #291915 is a reply to message #291900] Tue, 20 October 2009 10:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
what is your recommendation. Work with the KCC or manuall created
connections? I prefer to work with the KCC.



"Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
news:eN8UBSaUKHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:OCk341ZUKHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Ace,
>> I have two DCs in the hub site one holds the FSMO (DC1) and the other is
>> the secondary (DC2). I wish to use both of these as bridgehead servers
>> but would like to assign some sites to replicate to DC1 and some to DC2
>> in the hub, instead of one bridgehead server. I've decided on this
>> because the DC1 will already be busy with the FSMO roles, so I was
>> thinking reduce its replication partners, while increasing DC2. Any
>> thoughts on that? If you do, I know how to designate a server as a
>> bridgehead, but will I be able to designate it for certain partners?
>>
>
> Well, yes, you can do that, that is have multiple bridgeheads in a Site.
> To designate partners manually, you will have to delete the KCC generated
> replication partners, and manually create your own based on the design you
> come up with that you feel will be better or appropriate for your network.
>
> Ace
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291916 is a reply to message #291915] Tue, 20 October 2009 10:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pbbergs  is currently offline pbbergs  United States
Messages: 1024
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
As long as your network is fully routed, use the KCC.

--
Paul Bergson
MVP - Directory Services
MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009

http://www.pbbergs.com

Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:OFgpuVaUKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> what is your recommendation. Work with the KCC or manuall created
> connections? I prefer to work with the KCC.
>
>
>
> "Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
> news:eN8UBSaUKHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>> news:OCk341ZUKHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Ace,
>>> I have two DCs in the hub site one holds the FSMO (DC1) and the other is
>>> the secondary (DC2). I wish to use both of these as bridgehead servers
>>> but would like to assign some sites to replicate to DC1 and some to DC2
>>> in the hub, instead of one bridgehead server. I've decided on this
>>> because the DC1 will already be busy with the FSMO roles, so I was
>>> thinking reduce its replication partners, while increasing DC2. Any
>>> thoughts on that? If you do, I know how to designate a server as a
>>> bridgehead, but will I be able to designate it for certain partners?
>>>
>>
>> Well, yes, you can do that, that is have multiple bridgeheads in a Site.
>> To designate partners manually, you will have to delete the KCC generated
>> replication partners, and manually create your own based on the design
>> you come up with that you feel will be better or appropriate for your
>> network.
>>
>> Ace
>>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #291924 is a reply to message #291916] Tue, 20 October 2009 11:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
Thanks much appreciated.

"Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
news:OhxjFZaUKHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> As long as your network is fully routed, use the KCC.
>
> --
> Paul Bergson
> MVP - Directory Services
> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>
> http://www.pbbergs.com
>
> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:OFgpuVaUKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> what is your recommendation. Work with the KCC or manuall created
>> connections? I prefer to work with the KCC.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
>> news:eN8UBSaUKHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>> news:OCk341ZUKHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Ace,
>>>> I have two DCs in the hub site one holds the FSMO (DC1) and the other
>>>> is the secondary (DC2). I wish to use both of these as bridgehead
>>>> servers but would like to assign some sites to replicate to DC1 and
>>>> some to DC2 in the hub, instead of one bridgehead server. I've decided
>>>> on this because the DC1 will already be busy with the FSMO roles, so I
>>>> was thinking reduce its replication partners, while increasing DC2. Any
>>>> thoughts on that? If you do, I know how to designate a server as a
>>>> bridgehead, but will I be able to designate it for certain partners?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, yes, you can do that, that is have multiple bridgeheads in a Site.
>>> To designate partners manually, you will have to delete the KCC
>>> generated replication partners, and manually create your own based on
>>> the design you come up with that you feel will be better or appropriate
>>> for your network.
>>>
>>> Ace
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #292003 is a reply to message #291924] Tue, 20 October 2009 12:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
Guys,
I've Created the site link, assigned sites A&B to it. At site B, I deleted
the existing connections. I specify to check replication topology, got the
notification message and have been waiting ever since to see the connection
reappear, no luck yet. What did i miss?


"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:OqLKNfaUKHA.1372@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Thanks much appreciated.
>
> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
> news:OhxjFZaUKHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> As long as your network is fully routed, use the KCC.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Bergson
>> MVP - Directory Services
>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>>
>> http://www.pbbergs.com
>>
>> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
>> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>
>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>> news:OFgpuVaUKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> what is your recommendation. Work with the KCC or manuall created
>>> connections? I prefer to work with the KCC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
>>> news:eN8UBSaUKHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>>> news:OCk341ZUKHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Ace,
>>>>> I have two DCs in the hub site one holds the FSMO (DC1) and the other
>>>>> is the secondary (DC2). I wish to use both of these as bridgehead
>>>>> servers but would like to assign some sites to replicate to DC1 and
>>>>> some to DC2 in the hub, instead of one bridgehead server. I've decided
>>>>> on this because the DC1 will already be busy with the FSMO roles, so I
>>>>> was thinking reduce its replication partners, while increasing DC2.
>>>>> Any thoughts on that? If you do, I know how to designate a server as a
>>>>> bridgehead, but will I be able to designate it for certain partners?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes, you can do that, that is have multiple bridgeheads in a
>>>> Site. To designate partners manually, you will have to delete the KCC
>>>> generated replication partners, and manually create your own based on
>>>> the design you come up with that you feel will be better or appropriate
>>>> for your network.
>>>>
>>>> Ace
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify - HELP!!!!! [message #292062 is a reply to message #292003] Tue, 20 October 2009 12:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
I see an object created now in the hub site for the remote site, but I don't
see any created in the remote site as yet. Any ideas,
"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:eG0$EDbUKHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Guys,
> I've Created the site link, assigned sites A&B to it. At site B, I deleted
> the existing connections. I specify to check replication topology, got the
> notification message and have been waiting ever since to see the
> connection reappear, no luck yet. What did i miss?
>
>
> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:OqLKNfaUKHA.1372@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks much appreciated.
>>
>> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
>> news:OhxjFZaUKHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> As long as your network is fully routed, use the KCC.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul Bergson
>>> MVP - Directory Services
>>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>>> Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
>>>
>>> http://www.pbbergs.com
>>>
>>> Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This
>>> posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>>
>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>> news:OFgpuVaUKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> what is your recommendation. Work with the KCC or manuall created
>>>> connections? I prefer to work with the KCC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:eN8UBSaUKHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OCk341ZUKHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Ace,
>>>>>> I have two DCs in the hub site one holds the FSMO (DC1) and the other
>>>>>> is the secondary (DC2). I wish to use both of these as bridgehead
>>>>>> servers but would like to assign some sites to replicate to DC1 and
>>>>>> some to DC2 in the hub, instead of one bridgehead server. I've
>>>>>> decided on this because the DC1 will already be busy with the FSMO
>>>>>> roles, so I was thinking reduce its replication partners, while
>>>>>> increasing DC2. Any thoughts on that? If you do, I know how to
>>>>>> designate a server as a bridgehead, but will I be able to designate
>>>>>> it for certain partners?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes, you can do that, that is have multiple bridgeheads in a
>>>>> Site. To designate partners manually, you will have to delete the KCC
>>>>> generated replication partners, and manually create your own based on
>>>>> the design you come up with that you feel will be better or
>>>>> appropriate for your network.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ace
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #292259 is a reply to message #291916] Tue, 20 October 2009 15:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
news:OhxjFZaUKHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> As long as your network is fully routed, use the KCC.
>
> --
> Paul Bergson

I second that.

Ace
Re: Please Clarify - HELP!!!!! [message #292269 is a reply to message #292062] Tue, 20 October 2009 16:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:%23rzTMYbUKHA.844@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I see an object created now in the hub site for the remote site, but I
>don't see any created in the remote site as yet. Any ideas,
> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:eG0$EDbUKHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Guys,
>> I've Created the site link, assigned sites A&B to it. At site B, I
>> deleted the existing connections. I specify to check replication
>> topology, got the notification message and have been waiting ever since
>> to see the connection reappear, no luck yet. What did i miss?
>>

How long did you wait? What the replication schedule set to? 180 minutes
(default)? You can force theKCC by right-clicking NTDS, All Task - Check
Replication. But the replication schedule jumps into play. You can cut it
down to 15 minutes, which is the lowest it will go because intrasite
topology will replicate data between DCs within 15 minutes.

It may also be due to your current network routing topology.

What errors are in the event log?

Ace
Re: Please Clarify [message #292377 is a reply to message #292259] Tue, 20 October 2009 17:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
Guys,
I did force the KCC. Also let me give you a quick snapshot of the current
sites
1. The Default IP Site - halal all the sites bundled - This is a problem for
me rite away if Im going to move to a star topology. So I decided to remove
one site from the list.
2. I then created my site link for that site
3. Deleted all AD connections from the test site and wherever it was being
referenced by other sites
4. Activate the KCC
5. I got the connection eventually in the hub site but not in the remote
site.
The Default IP Site Link has a cost of 5 and replication time of 100

Now I already created all the site links today, but give them a higher cost
so that I can work on them tomorrow.

Now tomorrow I intend to reduce the cost and replication time - 15 - and
then increase the values on the default site link, delete ALL current
connections - automatic or manual - Then Run the KCC again and see what
happens

Whats your opinion on that strategy.
P.S. I ensured i backed up AD before I started making the chanes








"Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
news:uBj0jBdUKHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
> news:OhxjFZaUKHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> As long as your network is fully routed, use the KCC.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Bergson
>
> I second that.
>
> Ace
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #292410 is a reply to message #292377] Tue, 20 October 2009 18:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
Ace,
I just logged in and did what is written below, im just waiting now

"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:%23KVh2DeUKHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Guys,
> I did force the KCC. Also let me give you a quick snapshot of the current
> sites
> 1. The Default IP Site - halal all the sites bundled - This is a problem
> for me rite away if Im going to move to a star topology. So I decided to
> remove one site from the list.
> 2. I then created my site link for that site
> 3. Deleted all AD connections from the test site and wherever it was being
> referenced by other sites
> 4. Activate the KCC
> 5. I got the connection eventually in the hub site but not in the remote
> site.
> The Default IP Site Link has a cost of 5 and replication time of 100
>
> Now I already created all the site links today, but give them a higher
> cost so that I can work on them tomorrow.
>
> Now tomorrow I intend to reduce the cost and replication time - 15 - and
> then increase the values on the default site link, delete ALL current
> connections - automatic or manual - Then Run the KCC again and see what
> happens
>
> Whats your opinion on that strategy.
> P.S. I ensured i backed up AD before I started making the chanes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
> news:uBj0jBdUKHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
>> news:OhxjFZaUKHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> As long as your network is fully routed, use the KCC.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul Bergson
>>
>> I second that.
>>
>> Ace
>>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #292470 is a reply to message #292377] Tue, 20 October 2009 20:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:%23KVh2DeUKHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Guys,
> I did force the KCC. Also let me give you a quick snapshot of the current
> sites
> 1. The Default IP Site - halal all the sites bundled - This is a problem
> for me rite away if Im going to move to a star topology. So I decided to
> remove one site from the list.
> 2. I then created my site link for that site
> 3. Deleted all AD connections from the test site and wherever it was being
> referenced by other sites
> 4. Activate the KCC
> 5. I got the connection eventually in the hub site but not in the remote
> site.
> The Default IP Site Link has a cost of 5 and replication time of 100
>
> Now I already created all the site links today, but give them a higher
> cost so that I can work on them tomorrow.
>
> Now tomorrow I intend to reduce the cost and replication time - 15 - and
> then increase the values on the default site link, delete ALL current
> connections - automatic or manual - Then Run the KCC again and see what
> happens
>
> Whats your opinion on that strategy.
> P.S. I ensured i backed up AD before I started making the chanes
>
>


I think this is a change that should have been done on a weekend.

Ace
Re: Please Clarify [message #292474 is a reply to message #292410] Tue, 20 October 2009 20:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:efuOddeUKHA.3428@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Ace,
> I just logged in and did what is written below, im just waiting now


I see you started another thread. I replied to it asking for some specifics
to better evaluate what's going on.

Ace
Re: Please Clarify [message #292493 is a reply to message #292410] Tue, 20 October 2009 21:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nik Alleyne  is currently offline Nik Alleyne  Canada
Messages: 81
Registered: October 2009
Member
Guys,
I'm so sorry for wasting your time on that issue. I figured I choose the
wrong site to start this process. After not being able to solve the problem,
I decided to try another site. Those worked without any issues. As a result,
I've already migrated 3 sites without any further issue. So I decided to run
repadmin with a few more options against that server and I have concluded
that along with the outputs I have received, it would be safe to say that
the KCC knows nothing about that server since I keep geting it is beyond the
tombstone period or something showing a date months ago or even never in
some instances.
So once again, thanks for the help sorry for wasting your time. I will
migrate the other sites and when all is done then I demote this server and
then promote it back to a DC in the domain.
Thanks



"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:efuOddeUKHA.3428@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Ace,
> I just logged in and did what is written below, im just waiting now
>
> "Nik" <nik> wrote in message
> news:%23KVh2DeUKHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Guys,
>> I did force the KCC. Also let me give you a quick snapshot of the current
>> sites
>> 1. The Default IP Site - halal all the sites bundled - This is a problem
>> for me rite away if Im going to move to a star topology. So I decided to
>> remove one site from the list.
>> 2. I then created my site link for that site
>> 3. Deleted all AD connections from the test site and wherever it was
>> being referenced by other sites
>> 4. Activate the KCC
>> 5. I got the connection eventually in the hub site but not in the remote
>> site.
>> The Default IP Site Link has a cost of 5 and replication time of 100
>>
>> Now I already created all the site links today, but give them a higher
>> cost so that I can work on them tomorrow.
>>
>> Now tomorrow I intend to reduce the cost and replication time - 15 - and
>> then increase the values on the default site link, delete ALL current
>> connections - automatic or manual - Then Run the KCC again and see what
>> happens
>>
>> Whats your opinion on that strategy.
>> P.S. I ensured i backed up AD before I started making the chanes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
>> news:uBj0jBdUKHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> "Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbbergs@no_spammsn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OhxjFZaUKHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> As long as your network is fully routed, use the KCC.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Paul Bergson
>>>
>>> I second that.
>>>
>>> Ace
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Please Clarify [message #292500 is a reply to message #292493] Tue, 20 October 2009 21:22 Go to previous message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Nik" <nik> wrote in message news:ueh2xxfUKHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Guys,
> I'm so sorry for wasting your time on that issue. I figured I choose the
> wrong site to start this process. After not being able to solve the
> problem, I decided to try another site. Those worked without any issues.
> As a result, I've already migrated 3 sites without any further issue. So I
> decided to run repadmin with a few more options against that server and I
> have concluded that along with the outputs I have received, it would be
> safe to say that the KCC knows nothing about that server since I keep
> geting it is beyond the tombstone period or something showing a date
> months ago or even never in some instances.
> So once again, thanks for the help sorry for wasting your time. I will
> migrate the other sites and when all is done then I demote this server and
> then promote it back to a DC in the domain.
> Thanks

No problem, NIk. We are here to help.

As for the past the tombstone time on that specific DC, it may not demote
properly. When demoting, run dcpromo /forceremoval, and delete its reference
in Sites and Services. If it doesn't demote, you'll have to run a metadata
cleanup on the AD database.

Ace
Previous Topic:netlogon and sysvol shares missing
Next Topic:ForeignSecurityPrincipals
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Jan 19 00:40:27 MST 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04644 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::Sitemap::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.0RC2.
Copyright ©2001-2009 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software