How much of a resource hog is a PDC? My understanding is that authentication is done vs a BDC if available. I configured my new file server as the domain PDC because I figured it would already have to run samba. I have two other machines configured as BDCs to serve as logon servers. I'm looking for opinions on whether I'm asking for performance problems by making my file server the PDC. Actually, this machine is already serving as PDC but its not in production yet as a file server. So right now, its just the domain PDC. When I log into the domain and "echo %logonserver%", it shows that one of the BDCs was the logon server, not the PDC. It doesn't look like the PDC has to do anything but handle joining machines to the domain.
On 08/12/11 00:03, John Heim wrote:> How much of a resource hog is a PDC? My understanding is that > authentication is done vs a BDC if available. I configured my new file > server as the domain PDC because I figured it would already have to run > samba. I have two other machines configured as BDCs to serve as logon > servers. > > I'm looking for opinions on whether I'm asking for performance problems > by making my file server the PDC. Actually, this machine is already > serving as PDC but its not in production yet as a file server. So right > now, its just the domain PDC. When I log into the domain and "echo > %logonserver%", it shows that one of the BDCs was the logon server, not > the PDC. It doesn't look like the PDC has to do anything but handle > joining machines to the domain. > >We have to work within a tight budget and can't afford a backup server. We serve 600 home folders and logins to 25 clients from the same box. In an educational environment we experience slow logons which we think is due to everyone logging on at once. Windows 7 logons are particularly bad. Looking at top you can see slapd and nmbd throw a fit for a minute or so. With files it's OK unless we have a group working with gimp and photoshop. Usually it's when everyone is doing the same thing at the same time e.g. when a teacher has given an instruction to do something. On a normal lan I don't think you'd have these situations. HTH Steve.
On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 17:03 -0600, John Heim wrote:> How much of a resource hog is a PDC? My understanding is that authentication > is done vs a BDC if available. I configured my new file server as the domain > PDC because I figured it would already have to run samba. I have two other > machines configured as BDCs to serve as logon servers > I'm looking for opinions on whether I'm asking for performance problems by > making my file server the PDC. Actually, this machine is already serving as > PDC but its not in production yet as a file server. So right now, its just > the domain PDC. When I log into the domain and "echo %logonserver%", it > shows that one of the BDCs was the logon server, not the PDC. It doesn't > look like the PDC has to do anything but handle joining machines to the > domain.There really isn't an answer for your question. The load implied by being a DC depends on the number of clients and how heavily they are used. If you have only a hundred or so clients, in my experience, the load is pretty mild [for modern hardware/networks]. With Samba3 domain control there isn't really a BDC/PDC distinction. Every box is a PDC that operates in parallel with the other DCs. That is a bit different than a true NT4 domain.
I have a s3.4 pdc with a bdc,, pdc is serving around 80 users on terminal services and another 50 fat clients,,, acts as the file server.. roaming profiles etc... I have no issues other than the network card only being 100mb,, I do have a throughput issues.. but that is on the table.. On 12/07/2011 06:03 PM, John Heim wrote:> How much of a resource hog is a PDC? My understanding is that > authentication is done vs a BDC if available. I configured my new file > server as the domain PDC because I figured it would already have to run > samba. I have two other machines configured as BDCs to serve as logon > servers. > > I'm looking for opinions on whether I'm asking for performance problems > by making my file server the PDC. Actually, this machine is already > serving as PDC but its not in production yet as a file server. So right > now, its just the domain PDC. When I log into the domain and "echo > %logonserver%", it shows that one of the BDCs was the logon server, not > the PDC. It doesn't look like the PDC has to do anything but handle > joining machines to the domain. > > > >
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 08:36 -0500, Aaron E. wrote:> I have a s3.4 pdc with a bdc,, pdc is serving around 80 users on > terminal services and another 50 fat clients,,, acts as the file > server.. roaming profiles etc... I have no issues other than the network > card only being 100mb,, I do have a throughput issues.. but that is on > the table..Our "P"DC is a virtual machine. It search ~200 desktops and ~300 users. That includes roaming profiles, netlogin, and some redirected folers [some folders in the roaming profile are redirected to shares on the server]. Backend is LDAPSAM. Load is very low [with current-ish version of OpenLDAP - slapd used to burn much more juice than it does now]. Actual file-serving traffic burns up network bandwidth; but CPU and memory requirements are surprisingly low.