Oh that's interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information. Yeah I don't want to rock the boat at all but was just surprised by their point of view. I'm personally big on maintaining things at home, digital or otherwise.
Yeah... its' a little like hiring a security guard who actively tells people to STOP locking the doors or doing the rounds "until things are stolen". It's basically the same as "make sure things get stolen."
In WIndows, pressing a key for a function only does that function, or nothing.
I am taking about, for example, in top where
do two totally different things.
Right, an in WIndows it always does two different things. If you keep using it in places where both do nothing, you can make ANYTHING into "not sensitive". But that logic, nearly every letter on the keyboard does the same thing - nothing. So you just told me that WIndows isn't "key sensitive". See why that makes no sense?
I get that. I just know some are better at it than others. Just seems that it would be in a company's best interest to only have someone trained deal with salespeople if that were possible of course.
Right, but the theory is that the term for those people is "IT". Only the IT staff has the possibility of being this role, because if you had someone able to do this role that wasn't IT, they should be IT.
Knowing that the business was not taking their systems seriously might be the most important thing that he gleaned from this.
While I see what you're saying... I just don't buy it. the chances that a person would read your post and turn around and return to management and instead of being in a panic over patching say - hey, this is your bloody fault.. now what are you going to do about making sure this doesn't happen again? the answer is only SAM would do that, not another person I know personally.
You base the value on what you see as people likely doing, and there is rational to that. I'm basing it off what they are empowered to do. I like to give more options, faster. How they choose to leverage that is then up to them, but the info that they need is in their hands.
I know there is a best practice that discourages an environment with only one domain controller.
Why? Do you really need two domain controllers? How many authentications are you doing? How much downtime can you afford? Would it be better to have a single domain controller on a VM that you can backup and restore in a few minutes versus having two running at all times?
Why = because a document from Microsoft said so and at the time when I made our domain I didn't know any better :).
What you're asking me is what I'm asking myself, which moves me to the conclusion that when it's time to make the VM for the accounting software, the old box should just go away. Especially since my tiny number of users would be able to log into their workstations with cached credentials until I can get the domain controller VM functioning again.
Who cares what some paper from the company selling you the licensing says.
What does your company need?
I have never used two domain controllers in the SMB space. Even before virtualization at my clients.
It is simply not something needed.
You don't think the downtime justified the cost for a SMB I'm assuming and load balancing isn't a concern
Rarely is downtime worth the cost of mitigating it in an SMB environment. They often don't actually understand what the true cost of downtime is and exaggerate it more often then not. If you're getting enough requests that you're hitting a performance threshold on the domain controller then you may be out of the SMB space.
And authentication often has a near zero impact for short durations. A DC down could easily go 30 minutes and literally have no one notice.
Too many people become enthralled in learning the technology they want to work with and seem to forget the purpose for the technology in the first place. Active Directory is great, and knowing how to setup, troubleshoot, and administer it is fantastic. But what's the reason for it? Centralized management, which allows for greater control and efficiency in the business. It's a problem of being taught facts without understanding the context behind those facts, and that's a problem that affects the job industry as a whole, not just IT, although IT is usually the field where it's most dramatically seen. People going for finance or business management understand that their tasks are to suit the business needs, and the skills they bring to the table are to serve that purpose. But IT seems to go down this rabbit hole that the technology is king above all else, forgetting what the purpose of the technology is in the first place.