Re: Groups
- From: Steven <Steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:22:00 -0700
So far the change does seem negligible, I was just going off the MS article
seen below:
The following list summarizes potential benefits for caching universal group
memberships in branch office locations:
Faster logon times since authenticating domain controllers no longer need to
access a global catalog to obtain universal group membership information.
No need to upgrade hardware of existing domain controllers to handle the
extra system requirements necessary for hosting a global catalog.
Minimized network bandwidth usage since a domain controller will not have to
handle replication for all of the objects located in the forest.
--
Steve
MCSA, MCSE
"S. Pidgorny <MVP>" wrote:
Comments inline:.
Steven wrote:
We have roughly 500 offices in a single forest, single domain with no trusts.
Win2003R2 Native mode. Many of our security groups are mail enabled and we
also have many distribution groups.
I know in Exchange 2007 these DL's must be universal but I'm wondering if
these groups should be universal or glocal given our environment with
Exchange 2003.
I believe in the versions of Exchange prior to E2K7, any group can be
mail-enabled. Also, you don't need to convert all mail-enabled groups to
Universal if you migrate to E2K7.
And lastly can membership slow logon depending on the type of group?
Not really, no. Universal group membership is checked against GC, which
you can disable - but not without consequences. The time difference
logging on will be negligible.
--
Svyatoslav Pidgorny, MS MVP - Security, MCSE
-= F1 is the key =-
* http://sl.mvps.org * http://msmvps.com/blogs/sp *
- References:
- Groups
- From: Steven
- Groups
- Prev by Date: US-Cert Update on New Attacks on Computer Infrastructure
- Next by Date: Re: Unable to un-encrypt a folder using Windows encryption - access de
- Previous by thread: Groups
- Next by thread: When is it OK to disable IPSec on windows 2003?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
