So not the problem of using "seize" when both the OLD-FSMO server and NOVO-FSMo are active and on the network? The problem is to use "seize" if OLD-FSMO is not on the network and then come back? If I understood how it would be .... Regards; On 06-06-2018 15:46, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:35:29 -0300 > Carlos via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> In wiki -> >> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Transferring_and_Seizing_FSMO_Roles#Difference_of_Transferring_and_Seizing_FSMO_Roles >> >> "If the DC is broken (e. g. hardware defect) and will never come back >> again, then you can seize the role on a remaining DC. It is very >> important that the old DC will never be connected to the network >> again, if it is connected again, this will cause conflicts and lead >> to an inconsistent AD. This is because the old DC will not notice the >> change and still feel responsible for tasks related to the role." >> >> In my case, the problem is not hardware, but maintenance, but both >> servers will be connected .... >> > Well yes, it does say that, but nowhere does it say you cannot seize > roles at any time. I did it all the time when I was writing and > testing the code to transfer and/or seize the DNS FSMO roles. > > Just seize the roles!!!!!! > > samba-tool fsmo seize --force --role=domaindns -U Administrator > > Rowland > > > >
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:49:52 -0300 Carlos via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:> So not the problem of using "seize" when both the OLD-FSMO server and > NOVO-FSMo are active and on the network? The problem is to use > "seize" if OLD-FSMO is not on the network and then come back? > If I understood how it would be ....If you 'seize' a role and the original holder of the role is still running and replicating, then the new owner will replicate to the old owner and everything will be okay. However, if you seize a role and the old DC is 'dead', but later comes back (a zombie, I suppose), they will be out of sync and, for sometime, there could be two owners of the same FSMO role, not a good idea. Rowland
Thanks Rowland. I understand now :-D Regards; On 06-06-2018 16:02, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:49:52 -0300 > Carlos via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> So not the problem of using "seize" when both the OLD-FSMO server and >> NOVO-FSMo are active and on the network? The problem is to use >> "seize" if OLD-FSMO is not on the network and then come back? >> If I understood how it would be .... > If you 'seize' a role and the original holder of the role is still > running and replicating, then the new owner will replicate to the old > owner and everything will be okay. However, if you seize a role and the > old DC is 'dead', but later comes back (a zombie, I suppose), they will > be out of sync and, for sometime, there could be two owners of the same > FSMO role, not a good idea. > > Rowland > > >