 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Server Forum / Exchange Server / Design / April 2006Parent/Child Exchange 2003 Setup
My org is running Exchange 2003 with the exchange server itself on a parent domain controller, and my user's accounts on a child domain, on a domain controller at another site. My question is, if all child domain controllers goes down or are not contactable for the child domain, will exchange users in the child domain still be able to authenticate, say through Outlook Web Access. There are Global Catalog Servers at all sites and Active Directory Replication is configured and working properly. Perhaps the best way to answer this is like this: If the child domain controllers were all unavailable, what would the user account use for an authentication source? The answer to that is that they'd have to fail because there is no authority available for the credentials. One other thing: because you deployed Exchange on a DC, that instance of Exchange won't use other domain controllers. Be sure that the DC it's installed on is a GC as well for best effect. Al > My org is running Exchange 2003 with the exchange server itself on a > parent [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Directory > Replication is configured and working properly. Your first problem is putting Exchange on a Domain Controller. Get it on standalone servers and make sure that there are at least two DC/GCs on the same LAN. And since you put Exchange on a DC, I'd assume that you couldn't get the money to justify having more servers. In that case, the choice of having multiple domains was also probably a bad decision. I suspect that things would be much better and cheaper if you used ADMT to move all users to a single domain. > My org is running Exchange 2003 with the exchange server itself on a > parent [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Directory > Replication is configured and working properly. Hmm.. I wonder if putting Exchange on a non-GC is cutting edge thinking these days? Just thinking out loud, but it seems that Exchange is SO dependent on the directory and it's not nearly as likely that the directory service would be unavailable as it is that the network or a hardware failure would be an issue, that I wonder if it's best to just put the Exchange server on a GC and be done with it for many implementations. There are of course some complications such as restoration order and such, but a throwback to the 4.x/5.x topologies seems to work in many of these cases. It's nice to have the option of course, but... Seen anyone doing that type of deployment lately on a large scale? Feel free to drop a note off-line if you prefer. I'm insanely curious about such things though. Al > Your first problem is putting Exchange on a Domain Controller. Get it on > standalone servers and make sure that there are at least two DC/GCs on the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> Directory >> Replication is configured and working properly. Exchange is on a member server in the parent domain. I am looking for good reasons to justify a single domain, but political problems of not being able to give remote site Admins "Domain Admin" privleges becomes an issue. > Your first problem is putting Exchange on a Domain Controller. Get it on > standalone servers and make sure that there are at least two DC/GCs on the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Directory > > Replication is configured and working properly. Domain Admin? What do they need that for? I've found in the past that it's best to go with that idea for a while and ensure that the requirements are detailed to death. The reason for that is that you can provide the rights to do what they need at the OU level, but politics and past OS's often make it look like you have to give them DA. That's extremely dangerous to do as it is not a security boundary. If, after you detail the requirements, you find that DA is needed, best to go with separate forests. If not, OU's make more sense and you can often use the detailed requirements to prove the case of using OU's. The benefit of single domains comes in the disaster recovery planning. Much much easier to recover from failure at the forest level than it is at the domain level when there are multiple domains. Especially when it comes to Exchange. Because of this, I would favor a multi-forest or a resource forest topology in a highly political environment and the resource forest would be a single domain (think of it as a single ORG vs. domain). Al > Exchange is on a member server in the parent domain. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> > Directory >> > Replication is configured and working properly. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.