Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment
-
If you think of a conversation with management...
"Well Microsoft says it is a best practice to do X, therefore we should do it."
That's someone believing best practices mean what it really means (although we we'd believe a vendor's opinion, I don't know.) If they believed that a best practice only meant the thing done commonly or the thing most commonly good, that statement would make no sense - because they would know that something being a best practice has no reasonable bearing on whether or not it was good for their scenario.
I've never heard anyone use best practice to mean something other than truly being the best option.
-
@scottalanmiller You have some linguistic gymnastics going on there.
This is what wikipedia says:
Best practice
A best practice is a method or technique that has been generally accepted as superior to any alternatives because it produces results that are superior to those achieved by other means or because it has become a standard way of doing things, e.g., a standard way of complying with legal or ethical requirements."Generally accepted as superior" being the central point here. IMHO best practice means just that. It doesn't mean that it is actually the best way in every situation, only that it is accepted as generally the best way.
Put in another way - you better have a good reason to do things differently.
-
@pete-s said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@scottalanmiller You have some linguistic gymnastics going on there.
This is what wikipedia says:
Best practice
A best practice is a method or technique that has been generally accepted as superior to any alternatives because it produces results that are superior to those achieved by other means or because it has become a standard way of doing things, e.g., a standard way of complying with legal or ethical requirements."Generally accepted as superior" being the central point here. IMHO best practice means just that. It doesn't mean that it is actually the best way in every situation, only that it is accepted as generally the best way.
Put in another way - you better have a good reason to do things differently.
Actually read Wikipedia closely again... it's exactly what I said.
"A best practice is a method or technique that has been generally accepted as superior to any alternatives".
Notice "superior to ANY alternatives". If something is considered a best practice, it means that there considered to be no room for choosing anything else.
That's precisely what I said. No linguistic gymnastics whatsoever. Total agreement. @Kelly 's point was that he felt it meant that there were lots of times you wouldn't do best practices, because they were just common and commonly you'd do something else.
All I'm doing is following the language. The words are quite clear on their own. There's no massaging going on.
-
That's why Best Practices must be so few and far between, there are so rarely things that have no acceptable alternatives. Since a best practice must be accepted to be superior to all alternatives, then you never have to question it, as any alternative is inferior.
But in something like one DC or two, there can be no best practice, because both options are perfectly acceptable under different scenarios. Sometimes one DC is just fine, sometimes you need two (or more.) If one or the other was a best practice, then the other would be never the right option.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@brrabill said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
Just think of what a different discussion this would be if MS just allowed you to spin up a free AD server, that just had AD, like Hyper-V Server.
Just imagine if a free AD server existed out there!
Oh wait...
I'm guessing you mean Samba? Or am I missing something?
-
@pmoncho said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@brrabill said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
Just think of what a different discussion this would be if MS just allowed you to spin up a free AD server, that just had AD, like Hyper-V Server.
Just imagine if a free AD server existed out there!
Oh wait...
I'm guessing you mean Samba? Or am I missing something?
Yes, Samba will do AD for free. And is available on many platforms.
-
I believe the forest level with Samba can only be 2008R2 though.
-
@stuartjordan said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
I believe the forest level with Samba can only be 2008R2 though.
Sure, but what does that really affect? Forest level limitation is nothing like an old code limitation. Nothing wrong with using a 2008 R2 Forest level.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@stuartjordan said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
I believe the forest level with Samba can only be 2008R2 though.
Sure, but what does that really affect? Forest level limitation is nothing like an old code limitation. Nothing wrong with using a 2008 R2 Forest level.
If I am reading this correctly, I believe Samba 4.4 and higher can go to 2012 R2.
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Raising_the_Functional_Levels
-
@scottalanmiller Very true, nothing wrong at all in using. believe there was some improvements to DFS-R in higher Forrest levels, but if your obviously using Samba in your environment you probably would not be using this role anyway.
-
@pmoncho said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@stuartjordan said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
I believe the forest level with Samba can only be 2008R2 though.
Sure, but what does that really affect? Forest level limitation is nothing like an old code limitation. Nothing wrong with using a 2008 R2 Forest level.
If I am reading this correctly, I believe Samba 4.4 and higher can go to 2012 R2.
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Raising_the_Functional_Levels
Rumor is, but I'm not sure that 4.4 is widely available yet?
-
@stuartjordan said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@scottalanmiller Very true, nothing wrong at all in using. believe there was some improvements to DFS-R in higher Forrest levels, but if your obviously using Samba in your environment you probably would not be using this role anyway.
Right, generally not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@pmoncho said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@stuartjordan said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
I believe the forest level with Samba can only be 2008R2 though.
Sure, but what does that really affect? Forest level limitation is nothing like an old code limitation. Nothing wrong with using a 2008 R2 Forest level.
If I am reading this correctly, I believe Samba 4.4 and higher can go to 2012 R2.
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Raising_the_Functional_Levels
Rumor is, but I'm not sure that 4.4 is widely available yet?
Even newer versions =).
Centos 7.5 is using 4.7.1
Fedora 28 is using 4.8.5 -
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@pmoncho said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@stuartjordan said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
I believe the forest level with Samba can only be 2008R2 though.
Sure, but what does that really affect? Forest level limitation is nothing like an old code limitation. Nothing wrong with using a 2008 R2 Forest level.
If I am reading this correctly, I believe Samba 4.4 and higher can go to 2012 R2.
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Raising_the_Functional_Levels
Rumor is, but I'm not sure that 4.4 is widely available yet?
smbstatus on Ubuntu 18.1 shows Samba 4.7.6.
-
@romo said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@pmoncho said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@stuartjordan said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
I believe the forest level with Samba can only be 2008R2 though.
Sure, but what does that really affect? Forest level limitation is nothing like an old code limitation. Nothing wrong with using a 2008 R2 Forest level.
If I am reading this correctly, I believe Samba 4.4 and higher can go to 2012 R2.
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Raising_the_Functional_Levels
Rumor is, but I'm not sure that 4.4 is widely available yet?
Even newer versions =).
Centos 7.5 is using 4.7.1
Fedora 28 is using 4.8.5Oh wow, nevermind, lol.
-
@pmoncho said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@pmoncho said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@stuartjordan said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
I believe the forest level with Samba can only be 2008R2 though.
Sure, but what does that really affect? Forest level limitation is nothing like an old code limitation. Nothing wrong with using a 2008 R2 Forest level.
If I am reading this correctly, I believe Samba 4.4 and higher can go to 2012 R2.
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Raising_the_Functional_Levels
Rumor is, but I'm not sure that 4.4 is widely available yet?
smbstatus on Ubuntu 18.1 shows Samba 4.7.6.
Is that for 18.04 or 18.10, the latter released a few days ago (I need to go update some systems.)
-
yep, using 18.04.1 here...
-
So likely a bit newer now.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@pmoncho said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@pmoncho said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
@stuartjordan said in Handling DNS in a Single Active Directory Domain Controller Environment:
I believe the forest level with Samba can only be 2008R2 though.
Sure, but what does that really affect? Forest level limitation is nothing like an old code limitation. Nothing wrong with using a 2008 R2 Forest level.
If I am reading this correctly, I believe Samba 4.4 and higher can go to 2012 R2.
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Raising_the_Functional_Levels
Rumor is, but I'm not sure that 4.4 is widely available yet?
smbstatus on Ubuntu 18.1 shows Samba 4.7.6.
Is that for 18.04 or 18.10, the latter released a few days ago (I need to go update some systems.)
My bad, it is 18.04.1
-
I hadn't even realized it was out. I suppose I was out of town when it happened. But I feel like there was a lack of fanfare going on. I had heard of ElementaryOS going to 5.0 without hearing that Ubuntu 18.10 was out!
