Bob Bobel from Quest posted an interesting blog today, posing the question “Why are Multiple Directories Deployed and Virtual Directories Ignored?“. Basically stating that based on the concept of what a Virtual Directory provides, that everyone should have one (or want one). In his quest to find out why clients don’t have or don’t use a Virtual Directory, his general feedback was that “it just doesn’t fit our needs”.
Hmmm, that’s interesting that this would be the hightlighted response. In our experience, when talking with organizations (with multiple LDAP’s), most people really don’t know what a Virtual Directory is and exactly what one can do for them (although, they don’t want to seem behind on new technology, so they say things like “it just doesn’t fit our needs”).
It really all boils down to the lack of education on this emerging technology and the fact that there really isn’t much information on how they work or where to truely discover the benefits. When Microsoft comes in to help a client solve technical challenges around LDAP (AD, AD-LDS, Multiple-Domains/Forest, etc.), they mostly won’t recommend technology that they don’t have to sell. So clients miss out on opportunities to get educated on newer technologies that can help in certain situations. For example, Microsoft will almost always recommend to synchronize instead of virutalize, because that’s all they know and sell. Makes sense to me, but the client loses here by not always using the right tool for the job. Take a look at this for a quick guide to using a Virtual Directory.
Anyway, I look forward to part II of Bob’s blog on this topic.