0

The Infrastructure Master role is responsible for updating references from one object to another in remote domain. It compares it's data with the GC. So it is dependent on the GC.

Is it possible to assign Infrastructure Master role to a GC server?

my question is that Microsoft could unite this two roles together and the infrastructure master role is not necessary and the GC can play infrastructure master role . Does infrastructure master role have any other responsibility except updating object references ?

Hadi Nemati
  • 179
  • 3
  • 11
  • but there weren't any useful information about Infrastructure Master role in those answers. – Hadi Nemati Apr 27 '13 at 05:34
  • @MichaelHampton That question does answer if an IM can be on a GC server, but doesn't really say why (other than it "will not function correctly" in certain circumstances) – Chris S Apr 27 '13 at 05:34
  • 1
    This might be a better one, then: [In a multi-domain forest, what EXACTLY happens when some, but not all, of the Infrastructure Masters are on Global Catalogs?](http://serverfault.com/q/457435/126632) – Michael Hampton Apr 27 '13 at 05:37

2 Answers2

2

Yes, it can be on a gc. For example, as a best practice, all dc's should be a gc, so in that case it would have to be on a gc.

Also, when the Recycle Bin optional feature is enabled, every DC is responsible for updating its cross-domain object references in the event that the referenced object is moved, renamed, or deleted. In this case, there are no tasks associated with the Infrastructure FSMO role, and it is not important which domain controller owns the Infrastructure Master role.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc223753.aspx

Greg Askew
  • 34,339
  • 3
  • 52
  • 81
0

In a single domain forest yes it is possible as the global catalog isnt really used. In a multi-domain forest they shouldnt be on the same controller because if the infrastructure master is also a global catalog the infrastructure master wont ever update anything.

Read this article: FSMO placement

floyd
  • 1,530
  • 4
  • 18
  • 30
  • I mean the both replications can be unite together. – Hadi Nemati Apr 27 '13 at 06:34
  • 1
    Actually, common practice is to make *all* DCs into GCs as well. Not having the IM on a GC is a legacy recommendation from the times of 56k WAN links where you want to reduce replication overhead. Also, when you enable the AD recycle bin, the IM ceases to function. Modern best practice is to just have all DCs be GCs and not worry about IM placement. – MDMarra Apr 27 '13 at 15:49