Using name-spaces or address pools for domain controllers? (things to make replacing DC's easier)
-
@momurda said in Using name-spaces or address pools for domain controllers? (things to make replacing DC's easier):
Reddit for IT stuff, the same site that host r/TheDonald ?
I am not a fan of Reddit
-
A lesson I picked up around here is make your network shares using a cname, not the name of the server. This enables you to move a share to another server by just updating DNS, the mappings will all stay the same.
-
@dashrender said in Using name-spaces or address pools for domain controllers? (things to make replacing DC's easier):
A lesson I picked up around here is make your network shares using a cname, not the name of the server. This enables you to move a share to another server by just updating DNS, the mappings will all stay the same.
The "better" option if you're using Windows and Active Directory is to just setup a DFS namespace. Simple, easy to manage, and scalable.
-
@coliver said in Using name-spaces or address pools for domain controllers? (things to make replacing DC's easier):
@dashrender said in Using name-spaces or address pools for domain controllers? (things to make replacing DC's easier):
A lesson I picked up around here is make your network shares using a cname, not the name of the server. This enables you to move a share to another server by just updating DNS, the mappings will all stay the same.
The "better" option if you're using Windows and Active Directory is to just setup a DFS namespace. Simple, easy to manage, and scalable.
Actually, I find DFS overcomplicated in the SMB space. Many SMB do not need more than a DNS CNAME to handle it.
-
@jaredbusch said in Using name-spaces or address pools for domain controllers? (things to make replacing DC's easier):
@coliver said in Using name-spaces or address pools for domain controllers? (things to make replacing DC's easier):
@dashrender said in Using name-spaces or address pools for domain controllers? (things to make replacing DC's easier):
A lesson I picked up around here is make your network shares using a cname, not the name of the server. This enables you to move a share to another server by just updating DNS, the mappings will all stay the same.
The "better" option if you're using Windows and Active Directory is to just setup a DFS namespace. Simple, easy to manage, and scalable.
Actually, I find DFS overcomplicated in the SMB space. Many SMB do not need more than a DNS CNAME to handle it.
I agree, I almost always avoid it. Lots of complication, easy to break. Pretty rare to find an SMB that will really benefit from it. Even SMB in general, I see in use less and less.
-
DFS is very simple, did you mean DFS-R?
I mean I get why a SMB wouldn't need it... single file server with a few shares, not a huge benefit to use DFS.
But the benefits of it are nice when it fits the environment.
-
@tim_g said in Using name-spaces or address pools for domain controllers? (things to make replacing DC's easier):
DFS is very simple, did you mean DFS-R?
I mean I get why a SMB wouldn't need it... single file server with a few shares, not a huge benefit to use DFS.
But the benefits of it are nice when it fits the environment.
DFS-R is needed for Replication from Server 2012 R2 and up.
-
Yeah but many people only implement DFS for the replication. You don't need to replicate to use DFS. DFS by itself is great for the benefits if it's worth using in the first place i mean.
-
@tim_g said in Using name-spaces or address pools for domain controllers? (things to make replacing DC's easier):
Yeah but many people only implement DFS for the replication. You don't need to replicate to use DFS. DFS by itself is great for the benefits if it's worth using in the first place i mean.
Yeah, that is totally fine.
-
@dave247 you might have a look at this thread. I think it could be useful for you.
