Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Adding Printers to AD

Last response: in Windows 2000/NT
Share
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 4:44:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory (More info?)

I asked my IS staff to add our printers to AD and they have told me the
following:
A group policy was put in place some time ago for not publishing printers
to AD. This is because of many technical reasons:
a..
a.. The more objects placed in Active Directory the larger the database
grows, which can cause greater chance of corruption
b.. The larger the database the longer it takes for AD replication to
complete. When you figure in some sites are on low bandwidth this could
cause slow connectivity issues for the site during the replication process.
c.. From an administrative standpoint this would be a huge task to keep up
with due to the amount of printer changes/moves that take place
d.. We immediately need to change information regarding every printer,
using the AD sites and services tool, to update the location of all printers
for the entire network. This would also be an ongoing administrative
process anytime a printer is changed be it deletion, name change, or
physical move.
e.. The printers that are currently listed in AD are the ones that were
published before this group policy was put in place. I am in the process of
checking our Region to see if we need to remove the existing published
printers.
I am skeptical of these arguments. Could someone confirm or rebut the above
the statement or point me in the direction of some documents that could
provide me with some additional perspective.

Tia
Dean

More about : adding printers

Anonymous
January 25, 2005 4:44:33 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory (More info?)

inline.............

--
Glenn L
CCNA, MCSE 2000/2003 + Security

"DLG" <deanl144@hotmail.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:eQkn14wAFHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I asked my IS staff to add our printers to AD and they have told me the
> following:
> A group policy was put in place some time ago for not publishing printers
> to AD. This is because of many technical reasons:
> a..
> a.. The more objects placed in Active Directory the larger the database
> grows, which can cause greater chance of corruption

Not true.


> b.. The larger the database the longer it takes for AD replication to
> complete. When you figure in some sites are on low bandwidth this could
> cause slow connectivity issues for the site during the replication
> process.

The size of the database has nothing to do with the length of time it takes
to replicate changes.
this is only a true statement when a new DC is promoted, and the entire
database needs to be replicated.
In this context

> c.. From an administrative standpoint this would be a huge task to keep
> up
> with due to the amount of printer changes/moves that take place

This is automatically accomplished. When a printer is installed to a print
server, that print server publishes the que in AD. If that que gets removed
from the print server, the printer pruning process will delete the AD
published print que object.


> d.. We immediately need to change information regarding every printer,
> using the AD sites and services tool, to update the location of all
> printers
> for the entire network. This would also be an ongoing administrative
> process anytime a printer is changed be it deletion, name change, or
> physical move.

When you say "location" do you mean the location attribute of the printer
object?
A printer deletion will automatically be pruned (this includes the location
attritute of the printer object)
There is also no technical requirement to define this attribute when a new
printer is created.
If you use this attribute, and move the printer around, then yes, this
attribute would need to be updated.



> e.. The printers that are currently listed in AD are the ones that were
> published before this group policy was put in place. I am in the process
> of
> checking our Region to see if we need to remove the existing published
> printers.

I'm all for this policy being applied to workstations, so that any direct IP
printer connections on the workstations are not published to AD.
But there is value to having print servers publish print ques in AD. "Point
and print" is a rather cool feater.


> I am skeptical of these arguments. Could someone confirm or rebut the
> above
> the statement or point me in the direction of some documents that could
> provide me with some additional perspective.
>
> Tia
> Dean
>
>
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 10:03:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory (More info?)

> a.. The more objects placed in Active Directory the larger the database
> grows, which can cause greater chance of corruption

You'd need an enormous database to ever need to worry about this. I'd say
this is inaccurate to say the least.


> b.. The larger the database the longer it takes for AD replication to
> complete. When you figure in some sites are on low bandwidth this could
> cause slow connectivity issues for the site during the replication
> process.

Again, unless you have an enormous AD database this isn't really an issue.
Also, you'll need to define slow links. The AD is quite efficient at
compressing and replicating over WAN links. I've run an AD over 64K lines
without any issues.


> c.. From an administrative standpoint this would be a huge task to keep up
> with due to the amount of printer changes/moves that take place

Not really. You simply ensure that the printer is un-published prior to
moving. When it's moved, you then publish it again. If you move the
computer again, there's no issue. This is only an issue if you move
printers between computers. Is that that likely?


> d.. We immediately need to change information regarding every printer,
> using the AD sites and services tool, to update the location of all
> printers for the entire network. This would also be an ongoing
> administrative process anytime a printer is changed be it deletion, name
> change, or physical move.

I don't understand this point. What are you saying? Yes, modifying the
location attribute is a pain as it's set at the printer (the software
interface on the computer that represents the physical device -in NT5.x
speak). If a printer were deleted, moved out-of-scope, etc. and the object
still remains in the AD it will be pruned after three attempts at contact.


> e.. The printers that are currently listed in AD are the ones that were
> published before this group policy was put in place. I am in the process
> of checking our Region to see if we need to remove the existing published
> printers.

What's the issue here? ;-) It's easy enough to remove these if you need
to...


--

Paul Williams

http://www.msresource.net/
http://forums.msresource.net/

"DLG" <deanl144@hotmail.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:eQkn14wAFHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
I asked my IS staff to add our printers to AD and they have told me the
following:
A group policy was put in place some time ago for not publishing printers
to AD. This is because of many technical reasons:
a..
a.. The more objects placed in Active Directory the larger the database
grows, which can cause greater chance of corruption
b.. The larger the database the longer it takes for AD replication to
complete. When you figure in some sites are on low bandwidth this could
cause slow connectivity issues for the site during the replication process.
c.. From an administrative standpoint this would be a huge task to keep up
with due to the amount of printer changes/moves that take place
d.. We immediately need to change information regarding every printer,
using the AD sites and services tool, to update the location of all printers
for the entire network. This would also be an ongoing administrative
process anytime a printer is changed be it deletion, name change, or
physical move.
e.. The printers that are currently listed in AD are the ones that were
published before this group policy was put in place. I am in the process of
checking our Region to see if we need to remove the existing published
printers.
I am skeptical of these arguments. Could someone confirm or rebut the above
the statement or point me in the direction of some documents that could
provide me with some additional perspective.

Tia
Dean
!