|
Home > Archive > 70-217 > April 2004 > QoD 4/5/04
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| jocampo 2004-04-05, 5:18 pm |
| This is a question i would like to make just using my own knowledge. (i hope to get the right answer. Anyway...my purpose is to reactive this forum, because people here seems to be "dead")
You have a native Windows 2000 Domain with 123 Windows 2000 Professional machines. After a normal week of operations, you arrive at monday to your office and you find that the Server that hold the PDC role is "down". Which of the following events is most likely to occur?
a. You won't be able to modify your AD Schema.
b. None of your NT4.0 BDC can replicate changes.
c.Your pre-w2k clients are not able to browse/find objects in the network.
d.Having a PDC down in a Native Windows 2000 Domain has not a negative effect in network.
e. a & b | |
| aznluvsmc 2004-04-05, 9:29 pm |
| Hmm.. Good question but from my understanding the PDC emulator only plays a role in authenticating down level clients when the domain is in Native mode.
I'm tempted to say C but I think with the PDC emulator down, pre-Windows 2000 computers are not even able to log into the network. I'm not an expert so I'll see what other people have to say.
Great for taking charge of this forum. | |
| aawmorris 2004-04-05, 11:42 pm |
| First of all I would have to argue the fact that you have a "native" 2K domain with a PDC. A "native" 2K domain contains peer servers. "A" would be correct if you only have 1 domain controller. "B" is wrong because you can't have NT4 BDC's in a "native" 2K domain. "C" would be correct dependent upon "A" being correct. I like "D" also because once again there is no such thing as a PDC in "native" 2K. | |
| aznluvsmc 2004-04-06, 10:38 am |
| Actually, even in a native domain the PDC is still important because it gets preferential replication of passwords.
Without the PDC, if a user makes a password change and then tries to log in before the change has replicated to all DCs, they MIGHT be denied access depending on which DC authenticates the user.
When a PDC is present, the DC must verify with the PDC to ensure that the password is indeed incorrect. If the PDC says the password is correct then the user gains access to the network. | |
| jocampo 2004-04-06, 4:46 pm |
| i'll give answer tomorrow, and a new one QoD. Did not see much participation in this one...
 | |
|
| Cool I check the forum out more if their is QOD's
Is it possible that none of the above are correct?
My understanding of PDC emulator role was that in a Windows 2000 domain operating in native mode the PDC emulator receives
replication of password changes performed by other domain controllers in the domain. If a password was recently changed, that change will take time to replicate to every domain controller in the domain. If a logon
authentication fails at another domain controller due to a bad password
that domain controller then forwards the request to the PDC emulator before denying the log on attempt and sending a notification.
But I dont know the effect of this role not being avaliable my guess is D but im not 100% on that because of what I said above  Ill do some more study on that tonight.
edit: ok yep D for sure and I now know that without the pdc emulator the local dc would still forfill the request (inregards to password verification).
Funny how things work out I just studied FSMO roles and today at work I was delegated the job of transferring the FSMO roles to another server | |
| jocampo 2004-04-07, 9:53 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by jocampo
This is a question i would like to make just using my own knowledge. (i hope to get the right answer. Anyway...my purpose is to reactive this forum, because people here seems to be "dead")
You have a native Windows 2000 Domain with 123 Windows 2000 Professional machines. After a normal week of operations, you arrive at monday to your office and you find that the Server that hold the PDC role is "down". Which of the following events is most likely to occur?
a. You won't be able to modify your AD Schema.
b. None of your NT4.0 BDC can replicate changes.
c.Your pre-w2k clients are not able to browse/find objects in the network.
d.Having a PDC down in a Native Windows 2000 Domain has not a negative effect in network.
e. a & b
Hi all.
FSMO roles and AD design is a very interesting topic. At least, i've found this very enjoyable since i began to study for the real test. No other MCSE test has given me so much pleasure.
Ok....
The main PDC emulator tasks are:
1.Processing password changes from both users and computers.
2.Replicating updates to backup domain controllers.
3.Running the Domain Master Browser.
If the PDC is down, you will lose the services mentioned above altought the impact of this downtime is greater in mixed mode Domains with NT4.0 BDCs than Native Windows 2000 Domains.
"a" has nothing to do here, since is not related with the PDC's task.
"b" is not a possible answer, 'cause in this hypothetical scenario we're using a NATIVE WINDOWS 2000 DOMAIN, so we should not have NT4.0 BDCs.
"d" is also not an answer either because having down a PDC does have a negative effect (possible the worst possible negative effects of having down one of the PDCs roles)
"e" is false, 'cause "a" and "b" are not good answers.
So the answer is "c": pre-w2k clients do not use Active Directory to locate resources on network. They use Browser service instead,a PDC role dependency, and in fact, one of the old NETBIOS legacies that Windows2000 & Windows2003 are trying to "kill" with the use of Active Directory. AD is less "network invasive", because for finding resources, AD do not broadcast messages, Master Browser does. | |
| DesertDog 2004-04-07, 10:32 am |
| Thank you for taking the initiative to breathe new life into this forum. | |
|
|
|
| quote:
Originally posted by jocampo
So the answer is "c": pre-w2k clients do not use Active Directory to locate resources on network. They use Browser service instead,a PDC role dependency, and in fact, one of the old NETBIOS legacies that Windows2000 & Windows2003 are trying to "kill" with the use of Active Directory. AD is less "network invasive", because for finding resources, AD do not broadcast messages, Master Browser does.
I would disagree with C being the answer cause you said in the question that:
'You have a native Windows 2000 Domain with 123 Windows 2000 Professional'
Nothing about having any pre-w2k clients.
Good question but got me thinking. | |
| jocampo 2004-04-08, 2:02 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by pazza
I would disagree with C being the answer cause you said in the question that:
'You have a native Windows 2000 Domain with 123 Windows 2000 Professional'
Nothing about having any pre-w2k clients.
Good question but got me thinking.
I'm agree with you! My mistake. I just made a copy/paste from my MS-WORD and made a "typo".
Yes! the answer is still the same, but having mixed clients (W2K plus pre-W2K) |
|
|
|
|