"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Bryan L" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> forwarded by my DNS server to appropriate external DNS servers. However,
>> in my DHCP setup I do have secondary and tertiary DNS servers assigned so
>> hosts can continue to resolve internet addresses in the event our server
>> goes down.
>
> Absolutely get rid of that.
> If the server goes down, you 've lost the AD Domain and whether they can
> browse the web is the least of your worries. I don't know that I would
> want them running around on the internet while I'm trying to bring the
> Domain back to life anyway. If you want multiple DNS's for redundancy's
> sake,...you need to do that via multiple DCs (with DNS on them).
Mulitple DCs are in the plan...if I can swing it. Until recently my (old,
old) file server has been serving as an additional AD server. It's starting
to become unreliable (hardware issues) and is in the process of being
retired. I've begun migrating things to a shiny new server we just got.
Dell talked me into trying Storage Server, with an option to switch to
Server 2003 standard if it better meets our needs. I'm evaluating Storage
Server right now and am trying to judge whether the Storage Server goodies
(indexing and single-instance storage of duplicate files) outweigh the
inability to run AD, SQL, IIS, etc. Although it'll be more work, I'm
halfway inclined to dump Storage Server and install Server 2003 Standard R2,
in no small part because it's the only other server I have that can serve as
a DC without violating both best practices and the recommended/supported
config for apps running on other servers. Incidentally, if you or anyone
has opinions/experience about Storage Server vs Server 2003 standard, I'd
welcome those.
You seem very adamant about not having failover DNS servers configured on
the clients. What's the reason for that? My network is small enough that
my DNS server should never timeout on a DNS query under normal
circumstances. Also, in our particular organization, much of our work is
carried out via partners' websites (we are an independant insurance agency;
we do business with dozens of different carriers, and rely heavily on many
of their websites). So although the loss of the domain is a big deal,
having the users' lose their ability to complete web transactions with our
carriers is a bigger deal (from their working perspective).
All this just reinforces to me that probably, having a standard server I can
use as an additional DC probably outweighs the benefits of running Storage
Server on our file server.
Thanks again for great responses.
BJ
>
> See what happens after correcting that.
> One step at a time.
>
> --
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
> The views expressed are my own (as annoying as they are), and not those of
> my employer or anyone else associated with me.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>