|
Posted by =?Utf-8?B?U3RldmVu?= on August 28, 2008, 9:22 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
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 *
>
| 
XML site map