Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (
More info?)
nospam.please@this.place wrote:
> Enkidu <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in news:42eddc42$1
> @news2.actrix.gen.nz:
>
>
>>nospam.please@this.place wrote:
>>
>>>It is true that Win2kserver running in its native mode
>>>as a Domain Controller will use Active Directory, which
>>>does not use the PDC and BDC terminology in the same way
>>>as WinNT4server did (although one of the DCs
>>>still acts something like a "primary" controller).
>>>
>>
>>When running in 'mixed' mode Win2K DC also 'uses Active
>>Directory'.
>
> I should not have used the words "native mode", as they
> can be confused with a specific term "Native Mode"
> that refers to something that I did not intend here.
> I was not trying to imply that "Mixed Mode" (which I did
> not mention) does not "use AD". I was just agreeing that
> the terms PDC and BDC are no longer used in an AD domain.
>
Native mode (and mixed mode) means something specific. There
is no way that you can have a Win2k box acting as BCD in a
WinNT4 Domain. There is no state of a Win2k box that can be
called 'native mode'. You are wrong.
>
>>>However, Win2kserver can join an existing WinNT4 domain,
>>>and can act as a BDC. It will "pretend" to be an NT4 server
>>>(and can later be switched to its native mode if all of the
>>>NT4 servers are removed from the domain).
>>>
>>
>>This is wrong. A Win2k server cannot act as any sort of
>>Domain Controller, PDC or BDC, in a WinNT4 Domain. 'Native
>>mode' and 'mixed mode' refer to the whole Domain and do not
>>apply to NT4 Domains.
>
> I had better go tell the two that I have doing this that
> they cannot do it anymore, then. They may not be
> called BDCs (although in things like Server Manager this is
> what they show up as), but as far as I can tell they
> perform all the tasks that the NT4 BDC that they replaced
> did. Of course, so does a Linux box that I have running
> SAMBA (but I'm probably not allowed to mention that here).
>
I don't believe you. There is no way that you can have a
Win2K box acting as a BDC, PDC or any other sort of DC in a
Win2K Domain. When you make a Win2K machine into a DC it
installs Active Directory. Period. If you already had a
WinNT4 domain and you upgraded one of your machines to Win2k
you will have installed Active Directory and created a new
Domain. I don't know what sort of screwed up setup you have
there, but it is going to cause you problems in the future.
>
> Again, I should not have mentioned switching "native mode",
> even though I did mean the mode that is opposed to "mixed
> mode" - it was just an aside that was mostly irrelevant,
> as it applies to an AD domain.
>
If you promoted even one machine to a Win2k DC you have
Active Directory in some shape or form.
>
> I had better say here that I am not running this sort of
> setup as a production type of domain. I only am saying
> that it is possible. In the part that you trimmed out,
> I mentioned that doing this may not be the best
> way to do things. "May" was probably too weak of a word
> here. The recommended way of migrating is to upgrade
> the PDC to 2000 first - of course, the domain then is no
> longer an NT4 domain, and none of this discussion applies.
>
You cannot upgrade a BDC to a Win2k DC anyway. So this is
irrelevant. You are not running what you think you are. You
think that you are running a WinNT4 domain with at least one
Win2k servers as BDCs. That is impossible.
>
>>>Are you trying to update your existing NT4 domain and
>>>move to AD? I would strongly recommend Server 2003 over
>>>Server 2000. I would also recommend studying up on the
>>>process very well before actually doing it, as you may
>>>find it difficult to backtrack if you make the wrong choices
>>>along the way.
>>>
>>
>>I would ensure that you know the process well yourself
>>before you give people advice similar to the above, which is
>>incorrect.
>
> I did not say that I knew the process well - which is
> perhaps why I gave the advice that I did.
>
Well, I have done several upgrades so I do know what I am
talking about. The advice you gave was wrong and could end
up with someone damaging their systems.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
Barzoomian the Martian -
http://barzoomian.blogspot.com