Talk:Flexible single master operation

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copy-editing request[edit]

?? need editing writing up!

'Beefy' is not an appropriate adjective for a powerful server. "it also does a whole lot of other stuff" is also not appropriate.

The RID Master is listed under the 'one per domain' section however it starts off with "Every domain in your FORST has exactly ONE domain controller holding the RID Master role."

(The previous FSM related text is nothing to do with the author of the disambiguating text, but the preview doesn't make that clear. Oh well.)

The section on seizing FSMO roles from a DC is a little ambiguous, IMHO. I believe that where it states "If you seize a FSMO role instead of transferring the role, that domain controller can never be allowed to host that FSMO role again." would be better expressed as follows:

"If you seize a FSMO role from a domain controller, instead of transferring the role, the domain controller from which the role was seized can never again be allowed to host that FSMO role."

It's a bit long winded, but I believe it's less ambiguous. 204.104.55.242 15:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.247.214.198 (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I don't think that the following statement is accurate: "If you seize an FSMO role instead of transferring the role, that domain controller can never be allowed to host that FSMO role again" the exceptions for this Rule are: 1.The PDC Role. 2.Infrastructure Master Role. you can sieze them and return the role to the server when it comes back online.--PaulHijazin (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad advice[edit]

"One GC server per domain in each physical location is sufficient"
If a GC is not available, you can't log on without it if you have multiple domains in a forest. You can implement UGMC, but that's not ideal.
Please add something like this instead:-
"Weighing up the resources, load and business continuity requirements in a multi-domain forest, it would be preferable to deploy at least a second DC running a GC for redundancy per physical site."203.92.7.99 (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]