Win 2003 Domain with 3 locations

Hey!
What would be the best way to setup a Windows 2003 network if we have 1 main
site, with 1500 users and 2 remote sites with around 200 users per site.
The remote sites have connectivity back to the main site using a T1 line.
Can we setup our network with only one Domain?
Should we have DC's on each site? Should all the DC's use GC?
What would happen if the link between the main site and a remote site goes
down? Won't create sync problems??
Additionally we are going to have an Exchange Server on the main site, which
needs to cover the users on the remote sites as well.

What would be the best way to setup this network?

Many thanks in advance!

/ Per

"Per Hagstrom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%23rF%(E-Mail Removed)...
> What would be the best way to setup a Windows 2003 network if we have 1
main
> site, with 1500 users and 2 remote sites with around 200 users per site.
> The remote sites have connectivity back to the main site using a T1 line.
> Can we setup our network with only one Domain?

Yes. That is "standard".

> Should we have DC's on each site?

Yes. I consider that the best way.

> Should all the DC's use GC?

Not sure.

> What would happen if the link between the main site and a remote site goes
> down? Won't create sync problems??

It will survive fine without replication for a period of time. WAN Links are
known to go down, but usually not for very long.

> Additionally we are going to have an Exchange Server on the main site,
which
> needs to cover the users on the remote sites as well.

That is common.

> What would be the best way to setup this network?

Use the "Sites" Object in Active Directory. The Active Directory uses "Site
Links" to maintain replication efficiently over slower WAN Links.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

Thank you very much Phillip!
I got a few more follow up questions:


"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Per Hagstrom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%23rF%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> What would be the best way to setup a Windows 2003 network if we have 1
> main
>> site, with 1500 users and 2 remote sites with around 200 users per site.
>> The remote sites have connectivity back to the main site using a T1 line.
>> Can we setup our network with only one Domain?
>
> Yes. That is "standard".
>
>> Should we have DC's on each site?
>
> Yes. I consider that the best way.
>
>> Should all the DC's use GC?
>
> Not sure.
>
>> What would happen if the link between the main site and a remote site
>> goes
>> down? Won't create sync problems??
>
> It will survive fine without replication for a period of time. WAN Links
> are
> known to go down, but usually not for very long.

Ok, so what happens if there are conflicting changes made while the link is
down. When the link comes back up again, will one DC be the "Master" or/and
what happens then? Or does it overwrite based on latest date on the changes?
In either way, couldn't that cause potential problems?

>
>> Additionally we are going to have an Exchange Server on the main site,
> which
>> needs to cover the users on the remote sites as well.
>
> That is common.

OK, so would we setup the remote locations with Outlook using cached mode to
minimize site link traffic or would we just leave it with the default
connection method?

Just afraid we are goning to cause a lot of Domain/Exchange traffic between
the sites...

>
>> What would be the best way to setup this network?
>
> Use the "Sites" Object in Active Directory. The Active Directory uses
> "Site
> Links" to maintain replication efficiently over slower WAN Links.
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com

Thanks again!

/ Per

"Per Hagstrom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thank you very much Phillip!
> I got a few more follow up questions:
> > It will survive fine without replication for a period of time. WAN Links
> > are
> > known to go down, but usually not for very long.
>
> Ok, so what happens if there are conflicting changes made while the link
is
> down. When the link comes back up again, will one DC be the "Master"
or/and
> what happens then? Or does it overwrite based on latest date on the
changes?
> In either way, couldn't that cause potential problems?

I guess the chance of a problem is there, but I haven't heard of that
happening, so I suspect the designers of AD (and the way it uses "site
links") have that hammered out pretty well.

> >> Additionally we are going to have an Exchange Server on the main site,
> > which
> >> needs to cover the users on the remote sites as well.
> >
> > That is common.
>
> OK, so would we setup the remote locations with Outlook using cached mode
to
> minimize site link traffic or would we just leave it with the default
> connection method?
>
> Just afraid we are goning to cause a lot of Domain/Exchange traffic
between
> the sites...

Exchange I suspect would be the heaviest load on the Link apart from "file
transfers" but I don't think it would be that bad. You may want to ask about
that in one of the Exchange Groups. Just be sure to explain your situation
clearly and don't glom onto the first method someone tosses your way. Think
about it and research it carefully before you dive in, because you will
probably get many conflicting methods suggested to you..

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

Thanks a lot Phillip!
I will check in the Exchange forum.

Still kind of curious about how it would handle a conflict between the DC's
though.. heh!?

Thanks!

/ Per






"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:%23and%(E-Mail Removed)...