Fact or Myth? Do not make the FSMO role holder a GC if you have other GC servers in the domain. Need to understand this and why!!!
2008 Native 2 DC's just upgraded from 2000 and demoted out old 2k DC's
In my formal training at school, our trainer warned us of a real world experience. He said,
"If you have only one DC, you are okay to have all roles and a GC. The MINUTE you add another GC, remove the GC function from the DC that holds your FSMO roles." It has something to do with the roles causing issues replicating GC data. And that teacher had a lot of good real world tips. So I am inclined to believe him.
I have 2003 Exchange Standard. We are migrating to 2007. But since we changed to 2008, an exchange guru advised this,
"I have seen this many times. DO NOT point your exchange server in recipient update services to a DC that holds the PDC role AND is a GC." (Same type of warning for a GC my teach gave me).
So I changed it. But I am feeling like I should search on "OS-Snopes.com" : )
Why would there be such a huge flaw? And if they know about it, why don't they release a sp update that either prevents you from doing this (graying out the option), or log a warning event that explains why you shouldn't do this. Something like
"Warning. AD has detected a secondary GC catalog Server. GC on this FSMO role holder has been disabled to prevent problems. See technet article 44430222220430404444400404
Here's the kicker. In our old AD, I am pretty sure both DC's were GC's. Now don't get me wrong. I do not want any weird issues with my network, so I am willing to follow any tip from the masters. But I would also like to understand why.
So is it any FSMO role, or just the PDC that should not be a GC when other GC's exist? Is this a myth or not?!? And why.
In my formal training at school, our trainer warned us of a real world experience. He said,
"If you have only one DC, you are okay to have all roles and a GC. The MINUTE you add another GC, remove the GC function from the DC that holds your FSMO roles." It has something to do with the roles causing issues replicating GC data. And that teacher had a lot of good real world tips. So I am inclined to believe him.
I have 2003 Exchange Standard. We are migrating to 2007. But since we changed to 2008, an exchange guru advised this,
"I have seen this many times. DO NOT point your exchange server in recipient update services to a DC that holds the PDC role AND is a GC." (Same type of warning for a GC my teach gave me).
So I changed it. But I am feeling like I should search on "OS-Snopes.com" : )
Why would there be such a huge flaw? And if they know about it, why don't they release a sp update that either prevents you from doing this (graying out the option), or log a warning event that explains why you shouldn't do this. Something like
"Warning. AD has detected a secondary GC catalog Server. GC on this FSMO role holder has been disabled to prevent problems. See technet article 44430222220430404444400404
Here's the kicker. In our old AD, I am pretty sure both DC's were GC's. Now don't get me wrong. I do not want any weird issues with my network, so I am willing to follow any tip from the masters. But I would also like to understand why.
So is it any FSMO role, or just the PDC that should not be a GC when other GC's exist? Is this a myth or not?!? And why.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Sounds good. Exchange loves Global catalogs and even more so in Exchange 2007. I usually find the best bet is to make all DC's GC servers also.
What you probably experienced when you removed the GC role from that DC is Exchange was most likely bound to that DC. When Exchange starts it binds to one particular DC. If that DC goes offline (or all of a sudden is not a GC) it sits there trying to communicate to that same DC/GC for quite some time normally about 30 minutes before it gives up and tries the next available DC/GC if one is available.
What you probably experienced when you removed the GC role from that DC is Exchange was most likely bound to that DC. When Exchange starts it binds to one particular DC. If that DC goes offline (or all of a sudden is not a GC) it sits there trying to communicate to that same DC/GC for quite some time normally about 30 minutes before it gives up and tries the next available DC/GC if one is available.
ASKER
We have 250 users.
I am very glad I joined experts excahnge. It is very cool to be able to collaberate like this. Thanks to all who posted. I will try to divvy points as best I can. Stay tuned! I may ask a lot of simple stuff just to be sure, so I generally go by best answers and if many then the first ones posted. Thanks again!!!