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

Home » Microsoft » Windows Server » Active Directory » Regarding two DC(s)
Regarding two DC(s) [message #350113] Tue, 22 December 2009 02:14 Go to next message
NAJMUSSAQIB  is currently offline NAJMUSSAQIB
Messages: 4
Registered: November 2009
Junior Member
Consider the following scenario:

1. FOREST : MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
2. 1st Domain Controller : KHOORYDC.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
3. 2nd Domain Controller : BPS.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
4. MS-EXCHANGE 2000 : MAIL.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE (on Windows 2000
Std. Server)
Operating System : Windows Server 2003 SP2


Since, we have two domain controllers running their own DNS services, we
want to make it fault tolerant like if one DC goes down, other must take the
control transparently. At the moment, it is dependent on the 1st DC,we
tested by disconnecting that one and saw that MS EXCHANGE was not able to
connect to 2nd DC (MS OUTLOOK was not able to connect to MS EXCHANGE at the
end-users), even ISA-2004 was seen asking for authentication at the
end-user.


A little guidance will be really helpful for the above issue.

Thanking You,

- NAJMUSSAQIB
Email: saqeb@live.com
Re: Regarding two DC(s) [message #350122 is a reply to message #350113] Tue, 22 December 2009 02:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
florian  is currently offline florian  Switzerland
Messages: 484
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Howdie!

NAJMUSSAQIB wrote:
> Since, we have two domain controllers running their own DNS services, we
> want to make it fault tolerant like if one DC goes down, other must take
> the control transparently. At the moment, it is dependent on the 1st
> DC,we tested by disconnecting that one and saw that MS EXCHANGE was not
> able to connect to 2nd DC (MS OUTLOOK was not able to connect to MS
> EXCHANGE at the end-users), even ISA-2004 was seen asking for
> authentication at the end-user.
>
>
> A little guidance will be really helpful for the above issue.

Basically, you need to put both DNS server IPs in into the DNS settings
on all machines. Primary is the first DC, secondary the other one. That
should work as a fail-over well. I hope you have Windows-DNS configured
as AD-Integrated.

Now, I don't know if Exchange 2000 does work like that or if it has a
static DC/GC name somewhere that it uses all the time. You'd need to
check that. From a fail-over perspective, having both DNS server IPs on
the clients should be enough.

Cheers,
Florian
Re: Regarding two DC(s) [message #350124 is a reply to message #350113] Tue, 22 December 2009 03:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
meiweb  is currently offline meiweb  Germany
Messages: 2225
Registered: September 2009
Senior Member
Hello NAJMUSSAQIB,

Additional to Florians suggestion configure in the ESM, Recipients, Recipient
update service the second DC/GC as Recipient update service (NetBIOS domain
name)

Best regards

Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm


> Consider the following scenario:
>
> 1. FOREST : MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
> 2. 1st Domain Controller : KHOORYDC.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
> 3. 2nd Domain Controller : BPS.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
> 4. MS-EXCHANGE 2000 : MAIL.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE (on Windows
> 2000
> Std. Server)
> Operating System : Windows Server 2003 SP2
> Since, we have two domain controllers running their own DNS services,
> we want to make it fault tolerant like if one DC goes down, other must
> take the control transparently. At the moment, it is dependent on the
> 1st DC,we tested by disconnecting that one and saw that MS EXCHANGE
> was not able to connect to 2nd DC (MS OUTLOOK was not able to connect
> to MS EXCHANGE at the end-users), even ISA-2004 was seen asking for
> authentication at the end-user.
>
> A little guidance will be really helpful for the above issue.
>
> Thanking You,
>
> - NAJMUSSAQIB
> Email: saqeb@live.com
Re: Regarding two DC(s) [message #350188 is a reply to message #350113] Tue, 22 December 2009 06:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pbbergs  is currently offline pbbergs  United States
Messages: 1024
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
One other thing to check. Verify that both DC's are Global Catalog Server's
(GC's).

http://www.petri.co.il/configure_a_new_global_catalog.htm

--
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.

"NAJMUSSAQIB" <saqib@mahykhoory.com> wrote in message
news:3107A42C-CD04-4DAE-B6F9-16B9A5BA1EBD@microsoft.com...
> Consider the following scenario:
>
> 1. FOREST : MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
> 2. 1st Domain Controller : KHOORYDC.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
> 3. 2nd Domain Controller : BPS.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
> 4. MS-EXCHANGE 2000 : MAIL.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE (on Windows 2000
> Std. Server)
> Operating System : Windows Server 2003 SP2
>
>
> Since, we have two domain controllers running their own DNS services, we
> want to make it fault tolerant like if one DC goes down, other must take
> the control transparently. At the moment, it is dependent on the 1st DC,we
> tested by disconnecting that one and saw that MS EXCHANGE was not able to
> connect to 2nd DC (MS OUTLOOK was not able to connect to MS EXCHANGE at
> the end-users), even ISA-2004 was seen asking for authentication at the
> end-user.
>
>
> A little guidance will be really helpful for the above issue.
>
> Thanking You,
>
> - NAJMUSSAQIB
> Email: saqeb@live.com
Re: Regarding two DC(s) [message #350242 is a reply to message #350113] Tue, 22 December 2009 07:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"NAJMUSSAQIB" <saqib@mahykhoory.com> wrote in message
news:3107A42C-CD04-4DAE-B6F9-16B9A5BA1EBD@microsoft.com...
> Consider the following scenario:
>
> 1. FOREST : MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
> 2. 1st Domain Controller : KHOORYDC.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
> 3. 2nd Domain Controller : BPS.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
> 4. MS-EXCHANGE 2000 : MAIL.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE (on Windows 2000
> Std. Server)
> Operating System : Windows Server 2003 SP2
>
>
> Since, we have two domain controllers running their own DNS services, we
> want to make it fault tolerant like if one DC goes down, other must take
> the control transparently. At the moment, it is dependent on the 1st DC,we
> tested by disconnecting that one and saw that MS EXCHANGE was not able to
> connect to 2nd DC (MS OUTLOOK was not able to connect to MS EXCHANGE at
> the end-users), even ISA-2004 was seen asking for authentication at the
> end-user.
>
>
> A little guidance will be really helpful for the above issue.
>
> Thanking You,
>
> - NAJMUSSAQIB
> Email: saqeb@live.com


To add to the other responses by Paul, Florian and Meinolf, it also depends
on the client side resolver. Read the following to see what I mean. Reaed
how the client side resolver works, as well as scroll down read the section,
"If one DC is down, why does it not logon to the other DC? Or If first DNS
is down, will it use the second DNS to find another DC to logon?"

http://msmvps.com/blogs/acefekay/archive/2009/11/29/dns-wins -netbios-amp-the-client-side-resolver-browser-service-disabl ing-netbios-direct-hosted-smb-directsmb-if-one-dc-is-down-do es-a-client-logon-to-another-dc-and-dns-forwarders-algorithm .aspx

Also with Exchange involved, it becomes a little trickier. Keep in mind,
when Outlook 2002 and newer first connects, it is provided a DsProxy value
for the GC that Exchange is using. Outlook will now cache it. If the GC goes
down, even if there are other GCs up, Outlook will not 'look' for another
GC. You have to literally restart Outlook. As for Exchange, Exchange will
lock onto that GC as well, and if it goes down, it will indicate so in the
event logs with numerous DSAccess errors until the GC is back up. The only
way to circumvent that is to go into Exchange and manually change the DC/GCs
it was discovered with the automatic discovery process and changing it to
manual and remove the downed GC. But the Outlook clients will still need to
be restarted. However if you have multiple Exchange servers, it needs to be
done on each one. If you have ISA, it needs to be restarted. Otherwise, it's
best to get the GC back up, and Exchange errors will disappear, however
Outlook will still have a problem.

I've seen this while working in a 5000 user system with 20 Exchange servers.
It was due to the AD group running Windows updates on the DCs. We talked
them into doing it after hours. It was a pain. If you have BES servers, they
need to be restarted after the GC is back up, too.

--
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: Regarding two DC(s) [message #350550 is a reply to message #350242] Tue, 22 December 2009 15:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dhruv raj  is currently offline Dhruv raj
Messages: 23
Registered: July 2009
Junior Member
Exchange uses its Own fault tolerent serivice DSaccess that is responsible for
providing directory information to exchagne servers.
DsAccess fires every 15 minutes will change the server it relies on on its own
more info http://support.microsoft.com/kb/250570

--
Dhruv Raj



"Ace Fekay [MCT]" wrote:

> "NAJMUSSAQIB" <saqib@mahykhoory.com> wrote in message
> news:3107A42C-CD04-4DAE-B6F9-16B9A5BA1EBD@microsoft.com...
> > Consider the following scenario:
> >
> > 1. FOREST : MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
> > 2. 1st Domain Controller : KHOORYDC.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
> > 3. 2nd Domain Controller : BPS.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE
> > 4. MS-EXCHANGE 2000 : MAIL.MAHYKHOORY.CO.AE (on Windows 2000
> > Std. Server)
> > Operating System : Windows Server 2003 SP2
> >
> >
> > Since, we have two domain controllers running their own DNS services, we
> > want to make it fault tolerant like if one DC goes down, other must take
> > the control transparently. At the moment, it is dependent on the 1st DC,we
> > tested by disconnecting that one and saw that MS EXCHANGE was not able to
> > connect to 2nd DC (MS OUTLOOK was not able to connect to MS EXCHANGE at
> > the end-users), even ISA-2004 was seen asking for authentication at the
> > end-user.
> >
> >
> > A little guidance will be really helpful for the above issue.
> >
> > Thanking You,
> >
> > - NAJMUSSAQIB
> > Email: saqeb@live.com
>
>
> To add to the other responses by Paul, Florian and Meinolf, it also depends
> on the client side resolver. Read the following to see what I mean. Reaed
> how the client side resolver works, as well as scroll down read the section,
> "If one DC is down, why does it not logon to the other DC? Or If first DNS
> is down, will it use the second DNS to find another DC to logon?"
>
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/acefekay/archive/2009/11/29/dns-wins -netbios-amp-the-client-side-resolver-browser-service-disabl ing-netbios-direct-hosted-smb-directsmb-if-one-dc-is-down-do es-a-client-logon-to-another-dc-and-dns-forwarders-algorithm .aspx
>
> Also with Exchange involved, it becomes a little trickier. Keep in mind,
> when Outlook 2002 and newer first connects, it is provided a DsProxy value
> for the GC that Exchange is using. Outlook will now cache it. If the GC goes
> down, even if there are other GCs up, Outlook will not 'look' for another
> GC. You have to literally restart Outlook. As for Exchange, Exchange will
> lock onto that GC as well, and if it goes down, it will indicate so in the
> event logs with numerous DSAccess errors until the GC is back up. The only
> way to circumvent that is to go into Exchange and manually change the DC/GCs
> it was discovered with the automatic discovery process and changing it to
> manual and remove the downed GC. But the Outlook clients will still need to
> be restarted. However if you have multiple Exchange servers, it needs to be
> done on each one. If you have ISA, it needs to be restarted. Otherwise, it's
> best to get the GC back up, and Exchange errors will disappear, however
> Outlook will still have a problem.
>
> I've seen this while working in a 5000 user system with 20 Exchange servers.
> It was due to the AD group running Windows updates on the DCs. We talked
> them into doing it after hours. It was a pain. If you have BES servers, they
> need to be restarted after the GC is back up, too.
>
> --
> 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: Regarding two DC(s) [message #350735 is a reply to message #350550] Tue, 22 December 2009 21:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Dhruv raj" <Dhruvraj@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2F88253A-EE4D-4469-9D3B-EE009BBB3F83@microsoft.com...
> Exchange uses its Own fault tolerent serivice DSaccess that is responsible
> for
> providing directory information to exchagne servers.
> DsAccess fires every 15 minutes will change the server it relies on on its
> own
> more info http://support.microsoft.com/kb/250570
>
> --
> Dhruv Raj

Hi Dhruv ,

Sure, that's the way the Exchange boxes themselves work, but Outlook and BES
servers are a whole different ball game.

I've dealt with this in a large environment and eventually Exchange
themselves will self-correct (so to speak), however Outlook nor BES do not.
Besides, the client side resolver on the workstations have a lot to do with
it. And remember, what the main thing is, is user productivity and
perception. If they can't connect because the one DC is down, they WILL
complain and help desk gets flooded with tickets and phone calls. They
excalate them to 3rd tier, us. What do you tell them? The simple thing is to
tell them to restart Outlook. We have to restart the BES servers, too,
because they are MAPI based and use similar methods to communicate with
Exchange. If the client side resolver has the DC that went down in it's
local cache, then there's not much we can do other than telling them to
restart the machine, otherwise, I would flush the local cache, but they do
not have local rights to perform such a thing.

But Exchange is fine after a period of time, as the article explained.
Thanks for posting the link. :-)

Ace
Re: Regarding two DC(s) [message #350947 is a reply to message #350735] Wed, 23 December 2009 08:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Phillip Windell  is currently offline Phillip Windell  United States
Messages: 526
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
news:OqlkSd4gKHA.5520@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> it. And remember, what the main thing is, is user productivity and
> perception. If they can't connect because the one DC is down, they WILL
> complain and help desk gets flooded with tickets and phone calls. They
> excalate them to 3rd tier, us. What do you tell them? The simple thing is
> to tell them to restart Outlook. We have to restart the BES servers, too,
> because they are MAPI based and use similar methods to communicate with
> Exchange. If the client side resolver has the DC that went down in it's
> local cache, then there's not much we can do other than telling them to
> restart the machine, otherwise, I would flush the local cache, but they do
> not have local rights to perform such a thing.

I didn't post in the thread because I've seen this conversation too many
times :-)

It just goes back to the fact that way too many Admins have the wrong idea
about the purpose of having more than one DC. The purpose is not so that
there will be invisible transparent smooth fail-over that the users won't
notice if on DC goes down,...because that doesn't exist. The main purpose
is so that the loss of a DC does not cause the loss of the whole Active
Directory Database. The secondary purpose if to load balance out the "jobs"
that a DC has to do,...by "spreading out" the FSMO roles across multiple
DCs.

The concepts of the FSMO Roles shoot down any idea of a smooth transparent
failover as well,...the FSMO Roles do not automatrically move to a surviving
DC,...if a DC is lost,...the functionality of the FSMO Roles it contained
are lost with it.

Hey Ace, BTW,..
I may be posting an AD (GPO) question later. but it is one of those unusual
problems that probably no one will be able to answer. I'm "moonlighting" at
night with a second part-time job with a consultant company that took on a
Bank as a new client after the bank previously had 3 other "outfits" working
on their stuff (at the same time) and they, or at least one of them went
"GPO Happy". So we are trying to clean up the mess. There is hardly any
setting left on the policies that has not been monkeyed with. They did not
leave the two Default Policies alone,..they attacked them with a vengence.
The Default Domain Policy is completely AWOL (verified by the GUID),...while
I was able to recreate the Default Domain Controller Policy by using
"dcgpofix".

I'll post it if I can figure out how to properly describe the situation in a
way that people will understand what I am going to describe (if that's
possible). I may have to call you on the phone sometime maybe (I think I
have your number). But I'll admit, I doubt anyone will be able to sort
this out short of us getting MS Support on the phone.

--
Phillip Windell

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------
Re: Regarding two DC(s) [message #350970 is a reply to message #350947] Wed, 23 December 2009 08:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Phillip Windell" <philwindell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uv2ynG%23gKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
> news:OqlkSd4gKHA.5520@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> it. And remember, what the main thing is, is user productivity and
>> perception. If they can't connect because the one DC is down, they WILL
>> complain and help desk gets flooded with tickets and phone calls. They
>> excalate them to 3rd tier, us. What do you tell them? The simple thing is
>> to tell them to restart Outlook. We have to restart the BES servers, too,
>> because they are MAPI based and use similar methods to communicate with
>> Exchange. If the client side resolver has the DC that went down in it's
>> local cache, then there's not much we can do other than telling them to
>> restart the machine, otherwise, I would flush the local cache, but they
>> do not have local rights to perform such a thing.
>
> I didn't post in the thread because I've seen this conversation too many
> times :-)
>
> It just goes back to the fact that way too many Admins have the wrong idea
> about the purpose of having more than one DC. The purpose is not so that
> there will be invisible transparent smooth fail-over that the users won't
> notice if on DC goes down,...because that doesn't exist. The main purpose
> is so that the loss of a DC does not cause the loss of the whole Active
> Directory Database. The secondary purpose if to load balance out the
> "jobs" that a DC has to do,...by "spreading out" the FSMO roles across
> multiple DCs.
>
> The concepts of the FSMO Roles shoot down any idea of a smooth transparent
> failover as well,...the FSMO Roles do not automatrically move to a
> surviving DC,...if a DC is lost,...the functionality of the FSMO Roles it
> contained are lost with it.
>
> Hey Ace, BTW,..
> I may be posting an AD (GPO) question later. but it is one of those
> unusual problems that probably no one will be able to answer. I'm
> "moonlighting" at night with a second part-time job with a consultant
> company that took on a Bank as a new client after the bank previously had
> 3 other "outfits" working on their stuff (at the same time) and they, or
> at least one of them went "GPO Happy". So we are trying to clean up the
> mess. There is hardly any setting left on the policies that has not been
> monkeyed with. They did not leave the two Default Policies alone,..they
> attacked them with a vengence. The Default Domain Policy is completely
> AWOL (verified by the GUID),...while I was able to recreate the Default
> Domain Controller Policy by using "dcgpofix".
>
> I'll post it if I can figure out how to properly describe the situation in
> a way that people will understand what I am going to describe (if that's
> possible). I may have to call you on the phone sometime maybe (I think I
> have your number). But I'll admit, I doubt anyone will be able to sort
> this out short of us getting MS Support on the phone.
>
> --
> Phillip Windell
>
> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or
> Microsoft,
> or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>


Sure, I'll look for the post, and I will try my best to help out if I can,
and you are welcome to call me. I think you have my cell #. What makes it
difficult if they've messed with the Default Domain policy, it is sometimes
a PITA to straighten out.

Ace
Re: Regarding two DC(s) [message #351014 is a reply to message #350970] Wed, 23 December 2009 09:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Phillip Windell  is currently offline Phillip Windell  United States
Messages: 526
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
news:eK09ua%23gKHA.1540@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Sure, I'll look for the post, and I will try my best to help out if I can,
> and you are welcome to call me. I think you have my cell #. What makes it
> difficult if they've messed with the Default Domain policy, it is
> sometimes a PITA to straighten out.

Is there a good or bad time to call? If we talked first, and then if I
still have to post, it might help me organize a post more clearly.

--
Phillip Windell

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------
Re: Regarding two DC(s) [message #351046 is a reply to message #351014] Wed, 23 December 2009 09:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
aceman  is currently offline aceman  United States
Messages: 5816
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Phillip Windell" <philwindell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eJochy%23gKHA.2104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
> news:eK09ua%23gKHA.1540@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Sure, I'll look for the post, and I will try my best to help out if I
>> can, and you are welcome to call me. I think you have my cell #. What
>> makes it difficult if they've messed with the Default Domain policy, it
>> is sometimes a PITA to straighten out.
>
> Is there a good or bad time to call? If we talked first, and then if I
> still have to post, it might help me organize a post more clearly.
>
> --
> Phillip Windell
>
> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or
> Microsoft,
> or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>


I will be heading to a tire place for an alignment in about 2 hours. Maybe
that will be a good time to chat while I wait. Let's target 1:30 PM EST?

Ace
Re: Regarding two DC(s) [message #351081 is a reply to message #351046] Wed, 23 December 2009 10:36 Go to previous message
Phillip Windell  is currently offline Phillip Windell  United States
Messages: 526
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Ace Fekay [MCT]" <aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
news:eYG0aB$gKHA.5608@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I will be heading to a tire place for an alignment in about 2 hours. Maybe
> that will be a good time to chat while I wait. Let's target 1:30 PM EST?

OK

Phil
Previous Topic:Windows firewall settings deployed via group policy
Next Topic:Need Clarity Regarding Win 2008 DC and Exchange 03 SP2
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Jan 18 20:46:25 MST 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04463 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::Sitemap::.

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