J
John Collins
Our native AD domain has five DC's and services less than
10,000 PC/servers. Each department was initially granted
an OU with four sub-OU's; such as:
Department
OU Admins
Users
Computers
Servers
for our use. Some have found that one OU might get
cluttered up, say the Users OU has 20 similar security
groups; 20 distribution groups; and 20 different security
groups so the structure now looks like:
Department
Ou Admins
Users
SIM-Groups
Distro
Dif-Groups
Computers
Staff
Classroom
Labs
Servers
The additional OU folders contain objects that were
previously in the parent folder and actually don't
increase the number of objects except by the one
organizing folder.
Our domain administrators have stated that this process
causes all kinds of performance problems on the domain's
replication and directory services.
Is this so? Can anyone give me a good rationale for a pro
or con view?
Regards,
John
10,000 PC/servers. Each department was initially granted
an OU with four sub-OU's; such as:
Department
OU Admins
Users
Computers
Servers
for our use. Some have found that one OU might get
cluttered up, say the Users OU has 20 similar security
groups; 20 distribution groups; and 20 different security
groups so the structure now looks like:
Department
Ou Admins
Users
SIM-Groups
Distro
Dif-Groups
Computers
Staff
Classroom
Labs
Servers
The additional OU folders contain objects that were
previously in the parent folder and actually don't
increase the number of objects except by the one
organizing folder.
Our domain administrators have stated that this process
causes all kinds of performance problems on the domain's
replication and directory services.
Is this so? Can anyone give me a good rationale for a pro
or con view?
Regards,
John