|
server
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Network QuestionI have a medium sized network with two main sites (with domain controllers)
and 25 remote sites with 3-20 users each (no domain controllers). These sites are all connected together using Cisco VPN. The domain was recently upgraded from NT to 2003. Prior to the upgrade the workstations in the remote sites had entries in the local lmhosts file pointing to the PDC as per Microsoft Article 180094. The question I have is now that I have upgraded do I still need the lmhosts entries? Or is there some other mecanism that allows the workstations at the remote sites find the domain controllers? Are the workstations 2000 and XP?
If that is the case, DNS will handle the load. -- Show quoteHide quoteManny Borges MCSE NT4-2003 (+ Security) MCT, Certified Cheese Master There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who do understand binary and those who don't. "Nick" <N***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B36E007D-52DF-4829-B974-00305FCD3CF9@microsoft.com... >I have a medium sized network with two main sites (with domain controllers) > and 25 remote sites with 3-20 users each (no domain controllers). These > sites are all connected together using Cisco VPN. The domain was recently > upgraded from NT to 2003. Prior to the upgrade the workstations in the > remote sites had entries in the local lmhosts file pointing to the PDC as > per > Microsoft Article 180094. > > The question I have is now that I have upgraded do I still need the > lmhosts > entries? Or is there some other mecanism that allows the workstations at > the > remote sites find the domain controllers? Yes. All are XP. So, as long as I have the SRV records in DNS then all will
be well. Thanks. --Nick Show quoteHide quote "Manny Borges" wrote: > Are the workstations 2000 and XP? > > If that is the case, DNS will handle the load. > > -- > Manny Borges > MCSE NT4-2003 (+ Security) > MCT, Certified Cheese Master > > There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who do understand binary > and those who don't. > "Nick" <N***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:B36E007D-52DF-4829-B974-00305FCD3CF9@microsoft.com... > >I have a medium sized network with two main sites (with domain controllers) > > and 25 remote sites with 3-20 users each (no domain controllers). These > > sites are all connected together using Cisco VPN. The domain was recently > > upgraded from NT to 2003. Prior to the upgrade the workstations in the > > remote sites had entries in the local lmhosts file pointing to the PDC as > > per > > Microsoft Article 180094. > > > > The question I have is now that I have upgraded do I still need the > > lmhosts > > entries? Or is there some other mecanism that allows the workstations at > > the > > remote sites find the domain controllers? > > > Generally, yes. The lmhosts workaround is usually intended for networks
where there is high latentcey issue with reaching your WINS server. Depending on your design you may have issues with latentcy during log ons. Tools like MS's ad sizer tool can help you validate if you have devoted an appropriate amount of servers to you infrastructure design. -- Show quoteHide quoteManny Borges MCSE NT4-2003 (+ Security) MCT, Certified Cheese Master There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who do understand binary and those who don't. "Nick" <N***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:BD220D2E-8D39-414A-86BD-79CF0A7BB4E8@microsoft.com... > Yes. All are XP. So, as long as I have the SRV records in DNS then all > will > be well. > > Thanks. > > --Nick > > "Manny Borges" wrote: > >> Are the workstations 2000 and XP? >> >> If that is the case, DNS will handle the load. >> >> -- >> Manny Borges >> MCSE NT4-2003 (+ Security) >> MCT, Certified Cheese Master >> >> There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who do understand binary >> and those who don't. >> "Nick" <N***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:B36E007D-52DF-4829-B974-00305FCD3CF9@microsoft.com... >> >I have a medium sized network with two main sites (with domain >> >controllers) >> > and 25 remote sites with 3-20 users each (no domain controllers). >> > These >> > sites are all connected together using Cisco VPN. The domain was >> > recently >> > upgraded from NT to 2003. Prior to the upgrade the workstations in the >> > remote sites had entries in the local lmhosts file pointing to the PDC >> > as >> > per >> > Microsoft Article 180094. >> > >> > The question I have is now that I have upgraded do I still need the >> > lmhosts >> > entries? Or is there some other mecanism that allows the workstations >> > at >> > the >> > remote sites find the domain controllers? >> >> >> Seems like it should. How about renaming the LMHOSTS file and seeing if
things continue to work normally? If it breaks things, you can rename it and come back for more help. Regards, Hank Arnold Nick wrote: Show quoteHide quote > I have a medium sized network with two main sites (with domain controllers) > and 25 remote sites with 3-20 users each (no domain controllers). These > sites are all connected together using Cisco VPN. The domain was recently > upgraded from NT to 2003. Prior to the upgrade the workstations in the > remote sites had entries in the local lmhosts file pointing to the PDC as per > Microsoft Article 180094. > > The question I have is now that I have upgraded do I still need the lmhosts > entries? Or is there some other mecanism that allows the workstations at the > remote sites find the domain controllers? 
Other interesting topics
error with ntdsutil
Modify bulk users in AD Profile question Group Policies and web proxy settings Group Policy item applies the first time I login then no more How to do maintenance repair in AD Hello Everyone ? On searching Active Directory cleaning all user created files on logoff Universal groups and "Member Of" tab. Identifying obsolete computer/user accounts in AD |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
