On 01/20/2011 08:32 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
These are valid points. Being able to run the console on a process
other
than the DC is a plus for users who see the DC as critical
infrastructure where they don't want anything extraneous going on; i.e.
they do a lot of management via scripts and only occasionally run the
console.
One question that came up this week was why isn't the DC also running on
a minimal AS? I assume this has already been considered but it would
bring some additional benefits: -
- The DC becomes just another host so any instability in the DC and
the host controller is unaffected and can restart it as required.
- Whilst minimal services is still desirable services already provided
within AS can be used.
And also later if there was ever need to implement a more master/slave
domain controller architecture this could be achieved with a server
group specifically for the domain controller.
But supporting that use case may not be worth the extra
complexity of managing remote invocations.
Looking at that example Jason posted at the start of this thread, the
webserver wasn't doing much anyway; i.e. it's not a big burder. Most of
the work was in the browser or on Yahoo (the analogue to the DC's
HTTP-based API.)