Problem renaming Default-First-Site-Name

Erik Jostein Sørnes Erik.Jostein.Sornes at
Fri Apr 9 09:40:22 MDT 2010

On 04/08/2010  3:22 PM, Gerald Carter wrote:
>On 04/08/2010 07:50 AM, Matthieu Patou wrote:
>> On 08/04/2010 13:54, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>>> This isn't supported by us yet. We assume to have always only one site
>>> available with the name "Default-First-Site-Name".
>> Also I read on internet that's it's not such good idea to remove this
>> default site (like the default GPO btw ...).
>Hey Matthieu,
>Maybe, but it's done quite a lot in practice FWIW.  I frequently
>find networks that have removed the "Default-First-Site" or its
>localized equivalent.  And find some network segments configured
>for no site at all (which is definitely a bad idea).  And child
>domains purposely configured with no access to the parent domain
>(root of the forest).

Yes, I think it's recommended by Microsoft in the MSCS-courses, that if you are
 going to use sites actively, do not use the Default-First-Site-Name, I think thats way many
customers do not use it and instead use a lot of sites with different names.
I have seen a lot of ad-installations, with a lot of sites, for no obvious reason at 
all. All their dc's are in one segment and all the segments are very well connected subnets.
 Microsoft-consultants usually find it very "professional" to make lots of sites, they do 
not always know what they are doing and why they are doing it, I think. But, because of 
this, i think it is important for samba4 to support sites with different names, in order to become
easily adopted.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list