we have a separate restore forest where we have 3 restore servers. I am told that even though the only purpose of this forest and servers is to conduct mailbox recoveries from tape sources that we still need to consider how we setup the FSMO roles and establish appropriate GC servers. I don't understand that. I see it for production server environments but when all we will do in our Restore Forest is to restore mailboxes to the various restore servers, I don't see that there is any real importance for establishing FSMO roles on each server. Why?
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:15:02 -0700, Pearl wrote: >we have a separate restore forest where we have 3 restore servers. I am told >that even though the only purpose of this forest and servers is to conduct >mailbox recoveries from tape sources that we still need to consider how we >setup the FSMO roles and establish appropriate GC servers. I don't understand >that. I see it for production server environments but when all we will do in >our Restore Forest is to restore mailboxes to the various restore servers, I >don't see that there is any real importance for establishing FSMO roles on >each server. Why? Is there any real importance there? Well, in your lab you can easily stick all the FSMO on one DC and make it a GC as well. In production there are best practices around them such as not making the IM a GC if you're using multiple domains etc, but by and large, the SM, RIDM, DNM can be GCs and can be on the same box. It's all a matter of performance really. Your RIDM needs to be in the middle of the logical network so it has the maximum chance of issuing RID numbers out quickly and in a resilient manner. I'm not seeing an Exchange question here?
