PHWinfo - Afficher un message

22/03/2006, 16h20

"JMS" <jms_pt@clix.pt> wrote in message
news:%235SeQUUTGHA.424@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I am not it try to subjugate your knowledge, but I have 700 dhcp users per
>site that uses a 128kbps Wan Link, and they still use some apps over the
>link, and they keep coming and going everytime, so my DHCP Lease has a very
>short period time duration because i have a limited number of IPs to
>Attrib, the users for dns purposes only use local domains, rarely they need
>to use remote dns, and I have a Gc per Site, so Bandwith is very important.
>

Bandwidth (which I mentioned might be an issue) is different
from speed (which you said in the earlier message.) We
actually agree now.

If you are using private addressing there is likely little reason
for short lease periods however. (You aren't using class-C
size subnets for 750 possible clients just because you think this
is required, are you? Just make a bigger block of addresses,
e.g., 1000+.)

There is nothing wrong with Conditional Forwarding (but it
isn't 'faster' than holding the zone.)

--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
Accelerated MCSE
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
[phone number on web site]

>
> --
> Systems Administrator
> MCSA + Exchange
> "Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message
> news:%23USIG$TTGHA.5900@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> "JMS" <jms_pt@clix.pt> wrote in message
>> news:etIwwDTTGHA.4956@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> Not really, in fact the DNS zones have many Information, so Contional
>>> Forwarding would be faster.
>>>
>>
>> It's unlikely (almost impossible actually) that Conditional Forwarding
>> would EVER be faster than just HOLDING a COPY of the zone.
>>
>> Now, Conditional Forwarding might conceivably be better for
>> your network since it might reduce the number of records transferred.
>>
>> Even then this would need to be a large zone, and likely a few
>> thousand records does NOT count as large in most real world
>> situations.
>>
>> Remember that even a large zone is seldom going to change
>> MOST records unless it is all laptops with DHCP assigned
>> addresses, and even then how much data is really in an update
>> done through incremental, compressed AD replication?
>>
>> --
>> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
>> Accelerated MCSE
>> http://www.LearnQuick.Com
>> [phone number on web site]
>>
>>> --
>>> Systems Administrator
>>> MCSA + Exchange
>>> "Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ueSzB$STGHA.3192@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>> [phone number on web site]
>>>>
>>>> "JMS" <jms_pt@clix.pt> wrote in message
>>>> news:ey6rG7RTGHA.1868@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Hello everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> My scenario is the following
>>>>> two different trees
>>>>>
>>>>> First Site has 2 IpSubnets One Domain controller in each subnet, the
>>>>> DNS is AD Integrated and replicates two all Dns Servers in the same
>>>>> domain, both Domain controllers are GCs. This Site have a Tree Root
>>>>> Domain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second Site has 1 Ip subnet, 1 Domain Controller is also a GC, the DNS
>>>>> is AD Integrated and replicates two all Dns Servers in the same
>>>>> domain, This site has a Second different Tree root domain.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem:
>>>>> On 2nd Site I have condicional forwarding to domain01 (Site1), and i
>>>>> have especified the ip addresses of the two domain controllers in each
>>>>> ipsubnet.
>>>>
>>>> So presumably you are running Win2003 (not Win2000) since
>>>> it is the first to support Conditional Forwarding.
>>>>
>>>>> When one domain controller goes down, if I try to ping the domain01,
>>>>> it takes some time until it figure out that the domain controller is
>>>>> down and i get time out error, it takes some time until it start to
>>>>> ping the second domain that is available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this the normal behavior?
>>>>
>>>> Not really but if these are small domain/zones you might be better
>>>> off with replication across the entire forest (all Forest DNS-DCs).
>>>>
>>>> Then every DC would just hold all of the info and Conditional
>>>> Forwarding would not be an issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
>>>> Accelerated MCSE
>>>> http://www.LearnQuick.Com
>>>>> Thks-Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Systems Administrator
>>>>> MCSA + Exchange
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

22/03/2006, 16h20	#6
Herb Martin Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: Dns Prob "JMS" <jms_pt@clix.pt> wrote in message news:%235SeQUUTGHA.424@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >I am not it try to subjugate your knowledge, but I have 700 dhcp users per >site that uses a 128kbps Wan Link, and they still use some apps over the >link, and they keep coming and going everytime, so my DHCP Lease has a very >short period time duration because i have a limited number of IPs to >Attrib, the users for dns purposes only use local domains, rarely they need >to use remote dns, and I have a Gc per Site, so Bandwith is very important. > Bandwidth (which I mentioned might be an issue) is different from speed (which you said in the earlier message.) We actually agree now. If you are using private addressing there is likely little reason for short lease periods however. (You aren't using class-C size subnets for 750 possible clients just because you think this is required, are you? Just make a bigger block of addresses, e.g., 1000+.) There is nothing wrong with Conditional Forwarding (but it isn't 'faster' than holding the zone.) -- Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP Accelerated MCSE http://www.LearnQuick.Com [phone number on web site] > > -- > Systems Administrator > MCSA + Exchange > "Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message > news:%23USIG$TTGHA.5900@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> "JMS" <jms_pt@clix.pt> wrote in message >> news:etIwwDTTGHA.4956@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>> Not really, in fact the DNS zones have many Information, so Contional >>> Forwarding would be faster. >>> >> >> It's unlikely (almost impossible actually) that Conditional Forwarding >> would EVER be faster than just HOLDING a COPY of the zone. >> >> Now, Conditional Forwarding might conceivably be better for >> your network since it might reduce the number of records transferred. >> >> Even then this would need to be a large zone, and likely a few >> thousand records does NOT count as large in most real world >> situations. >> >> Remember that even a large zone is seldom going to change >> MOST records unless it is all laptops with DHCP assigned >> addresses, and even then how much data is really in an update >> done through incremental, compressed AD replication? >> >> -- >> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP >> Accelerated MCSE >> http://www.LearnQuick.Com >> [phone number on web site] >> >>> -- >>> Systems Administrator >>> MCSA + Exchange >>> "Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message >>> news:ueSzB$STGHA.3192@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>>> [phone number on web site] >>>> >>>> "JMS" <jms_pt@clix.pt> wrote in message >>>> news:ey6rG7RTGHA.1868@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>>>> Hello everyone >>>>> >>>>> My scenario is the following >>>>> two different trees >>>>> >>>>> First Site has 2 IpSubnets One Domain controller in each subnet, the >>>>> DNS is AD Integrated and replicates two all Dns Servers in the same >>>>> domain, both Domain controllers are GCs. This Site have a Tree Root >>>>> Domain. >>>>> >>>>> Second Site has 1 Ip subnet, 1 Domain Controller is also a GC, the DNS >>>>> is AD Integrated and replicates two all Dns Servers in the same >>>>> domain, This site has a Second different Tree root domain. >>>>> >>>>> The problem: >>>>> On 2nd Site I have condicional forwarding to domain01 (Site1), and i >>>>> have especified the ip addresses of the two domain controllers in each >>>>> ipsubnet. >>>> >>>> So presumably you are running Win2003 (not Win2000) since >>>> it is the first to support Conditional Forwarding. >>>> >>>>> When one domain controller goes down, if I try to ping the domain01, >>>>> it takes some time until it figure out that the domain controller is >>>>> down and i get time out error, it takes some time until it start to >>>>> ping the second domain that is available. >>>>> >>>>> Is this the normal behavior? >>>> >>>> Not really but if these are small domain/zones you might be better >>>> off with replication across the entire forest (all Forest DNS-DCs). >>>> >>>> Then every DC would just hold all of the info and Conditional >>>> Forwarding would not be an issue. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP >>>> Accelerated MCSE >>>> http://www.LearnQuick.Com >>>>> Thks-Regards. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Systems Administrator >>>>> MCSA + Exchange >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >