SAMIT: Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers?
-
@black3dynamite said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
All these best practices seems to be carried over from the days of physical servers.
The need for two didn't exist then, either. It's never been a best practice, always a complete misunderstanding of HA at best, a sales tactic at worst.
-
Microsoft wants you to do it so you pay them more money for licensing.
Other than that, it's good for remote locations across a WAN.
Probably already covered in the video, didn't watch it yet.
-
@tim_g said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
Microsoft wants you to do it so you pay them more money for licensing.
That's definitely why they don't spend time correcting the misconception. It's a big bonus for them for people to think that you always need two, no matter what.
-
In an environment with only one AD server, how do you handle DNS if your lone AD server dies?
Sure, you could drop in Google for the DNS, but that doesn't help you for servers that are inside your network.
You could spin up a Windows DNS server, but that is still another Windows license. In the SMB, I wouldn't expect many folks to have the skill set to run BIND for DNS.
-
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
In an environment with only one AD server, how do you handle DNS if your lone AD server dies?
Sure, you could drop in Google for the DNS, but that doesn't help you for servers that are inside your network.
You could spin up a Windows DNS server, but that is still another Windows license. In the SMB, I wouldn't expect many folks to have the skill set to run BIND for DNS.
Why not just use public DNS for your servers? Then you don't have to worry too much about having DNS on-site.
-
@coliver said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
In an environment with only one AD server, how do you handle DNS if your lone AD server dies?
Sure, you could drop in Google for the DNS, but that doesn't help you for servers that are inside your network.
You could spin up a Windows DNS server, but that is still another Windows license. In the SMB, I wouldn't expect many folks to have the skill set to run BIND for DNS.
Why not just use public DNS for your servers? Then you don't have to worry too much about having DNS on-site.
For internal servers? I'm not sure public DNS providers will allow you to use private IP addresses any more.
Edit: Even if they would, do you want to be giving out your private IP ranges to the public?
-
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
In an environment with only one AD server, how do you handle DNS if your lone AD server dies?
Sure, you could drop in Google for the DNS, but that doesn't help you for servers that are inside your network.
You could spin up a Windows DNS server, but that is still another Windows license. In the SMB, I wouldn't expect many folks to have the skill set to run BIND for DNS.
BIND, Host files
-
@scottalanmiller said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
In an environment with only one AD server, how do you handle DNS if your lone AD server dies?
Sure, you could drop in Google for the DNS, but that doesn't help you for servers that are inside your network.
You could spin up a Windows DNS server, but that is still another Windows license. In the SMB, I wouldn't expect many folks to have the skill set to run BIND for DNS.
BIND, Host files
See my comment about folks not really having the skill set to run BIND (not in the SMB market anyway).
Host files could work, but then you have to keep them distributed and updated. Something like Sodium could work if the SMB is aware of it for that purpose, or some kind of automatic scripts to do it... But would somebody at the SMB level of IT actually think about something like that?
-
In most SMBs, your AD server is the AD, DHCP, DNS, Print, and maybe a file server.
This whole single AD server can really only make sense if we are just talking about AD.
Once we start mixing in all infrastructure services, then this is where you take into consideration where Scott says case by case basis... completely depends on your environment and setup.
Common sense will come in to play.
-
@tim_g said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
In most SMBs, your AD server is the AD, DHCP, DNS, Print, and maybe a file server.
This whole single AD server can really only make sense if we are just talking about AD.
Once we start mixing in all infrastructure services, then this is where you take into consideration where Scott says case by case basis... completely depends on your environment and setup.
Common sense will come in to play.
Actually, the adding in of all of those resources does nothing to mean you need another server.
None of those extra services are natively simple to setup in an HA way.
The best thing to do is to have the single server virtualized and quick to restore from backup.
-
@jaredbusch said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@tim_g said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
In most SMBs, your AD server is the AD, DHCP, DNS, Print, and maybe a file server.
This whole single AD server can really only make sense if we are just talking about AD.
Once we start mixing in all infrastructure services, then this is where you take into consideration where Scott says case by case basis... completely depends on your environment and setup.
Common sense will come in to play.
Actually, the adding in of all of those resources does nothing to mean you need another server.
None of those extra services are natively simple to setup in an HA way.
The best thing to do is to have the single server virtualized and quick to restore from backup.
Sure... it depends on what is running on the server and it depends on other things like number of locations, distance, number of users, bandwidth, etc.
My point was to clarify this is all about having a single AD DC, and after that, there are more factors to consider.
-
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
In an environment with only one AD server, how do you handle DNS if your lone AD server dies?
Sure, you could drop in Google for the DNS, but that doesn't help you for servers that are inside your network.
You could spin up a Windows DNS server, but that is still another Windows license. In the SMB, I wouldn't expect many folks to have the skill set to run BIND for DNS.
BIND, Host files
See my comment about folks not really having the skill set to run BIND (not in the SMB market anyway).
Host files could work, but then you have to keep them distributed and updated. Something like Sodium could work if the SMB is aware of it for that purpose, or some kind of automatic scripts to do it... But would somebody at the SMB level of IT actually think about something like that?
Apart from tickets can Sodium do anything else at this point? Or did you mean once the functions are added?
-
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
In an environment with only one AD server, how do you handle DNS if your lone AD server dies?
Sure, you could drop in Google for the DNS, but that doesn't help you for servers that are inside your network.
You could spin up a Windows DNS server, but that is still another Windows license. In the SMB, I wouldn't expect many folks to have the skill set to run BIND for DNS.
BIND, Host files
See my comment about folks not really having the skill set to run BIND (not in the SMB market anyway).
Host files could work, but then you have to keep them distributed and updated. Something like Sodium could work if the SMB is aware of it for that purpose, or some kind of automatic scripts to do it... But would somebody at the SMB level of IT actually think about something like that?
I don't accept the "SMB hires bad people and therefore should do a bad job" argument. It makes no logical sense. Why would anyone hire someone that can't do the job, why would they keep them if they hired them by accident, and why would someone in that position be excused to not attempt to do a good job? Why does the SMB so often get used as an excuse to not need basic business or IT competence?
There is no logic that connects "people often do things badly" with "people shouldn't be told how to do things well."
-
@syko24 said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
In an environment with only one AD server, how do you handle DNS if your lone AD server dies?
Sure, you could drop in Google for the DNS, but that doesn't help you for servers that are inside your network.
You could spin up a Windows DNS server, but that is still another Windows license. In the SMB, I wouldn't expect many folks to have the skill set to run BIND for DNS.
BIND, Host files
See my comment about folks not really having the skill set to run BIND (not in the SMB market anyway).
Host files could work, but then you have to keep them distributed and updated. Something like Sodium could work if the SMB is aware of it for that purpose, or some kind of automatic scripts to do it... But would somebody at the SMB level of IT actually think about something like that?
Apart from tickets can Sodium do anything else at this point? Or did you mean once the functions are added?
Functions need to be added, but that one will be soon. Hosts management is very simple.
-
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
But would somebody at the SMB level of IT actually think about something like that?
This is like asking if we should bother telling people how to brake safely on snow or ice since most people will just panic and slam the brakes, anyway.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@syko24 said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
In an environment with only one AD server, how do you handle DNS if your lone AD server dies?
Sure, you could drop in Google for the DNS, but that doesn't help you for servers that are inside your network.
You could spin up a Windows DNS server, but that is still another Windows license. In the SMB, I wouldn't expect many folks to have the skill set to run BIND for DNS.
BIND, Host files
See my comment about folks not really having the skill set to run BIND (not in the SMB market anyway).
Host files could work, but then you have to keep them distributed and updated. Something like Sodium could work if the SMB is aware of it for that purpose, or some kind of automatic scripts to do it... But would somebody at the SMB level of IT actually think about something like that?
Apart from tickets can Sodium do anything else at this point? Or did you mean once the functions are added?
Functions need to be added, but that one will be soon. Hosts management is very simple.
Cool looking forward to the updates. I just thought maybe I missed something.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
But would somebody at the SMB level of IT actually think about something like that?
This is like asking if we should bother telling people how to brake safely on snow or ice since most people will just panic and slam the brakes, anyway.
That's kinda my point. Somebody could think about BIND after AD has already spread its guts all over the virtual walls, lol.
I think for most, the best bet is as @JaredBusch mentioned if you have a single AD controller, just virtualize it so you can restore from snapshots or backups and be done with it.
-
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
But would somebody at the SMB level of IT actually think about something like that?
This is like asking if we should bother telling people how to brake safely on snow or ice since most people will just panic and slam the brakes, anyway.
That's kinda my point. Somebody could think about BIND after AD has already spread its guts all over the virtual walls, lol.
But, how is that a point? What relevance does that have? Why would "some people might not have taken advice" affect "when we give advice?"
-
@scottalanmiller said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
But would somebody at the SMB level of IT actually think about something like that?
This is like asking if we should bother telling people how to brake safely on snow or ice since most people will just panic and slam the brakes, anyway.
That's kinda my point. Somebody could think about BIND after AD has already spread its guts all over the virtual walls, lol.
But, how is that a point? What relevance does that have? Why would "some people might not have taken advice" affect "when we give advice?"
Until my brain remembers where I was going with that, I'll have to say: You got me there.
We don't give advice just to give advice. We give advice in the hopes that we'll help somebody avoid a painful experience down the road.
-
@dafyre said in Do You Need Two AD Domain Controllers? SAMIT Video:
We don't give advice just to give advice. We give advice in the hopes that we'll help somebody avoid a painful experience down the road.
Right, which is why we say you don't need two domain controllers. Just because people might not take the advice doesn't mean that we should avoid giving it or give intentionally bad advice.
