Authoritative vs. Non-Authoritative Restores

kudzoorude

Hi all...getting ready to take the 290 next Wed. Using Microsoft Training Kit, Exam Prep 2, and Transcenders. Doing fairly well on the practice exams but I ran into an area that I believe I have backwards on this last practice exam...I still passed but I had 4-5 questions about authoritative/non-authoritative restores of DCs that I missed. Just wanted to make sure that my understanding is correct.

Here's the situation: 3 DCs on the network...DC1 backed up on Monday; DC2 backed up on Tuesday; DC3 backed up on Wednesday. On Thursday morning, an OU on DC1 has been deleted. The change has been replicated to all DCs in the network.

I will need to complete a authoritative restore of the DC that was last backed up (DC3)...Correct? At least that's what Transcender is saying when they grade me. I was orginally choosing to perform a non-authoritative on DC3.

When would you use a non-authoritative vs. when would you use an authoritative?

Thanks for any help

Roger

GT-Rob

That is correct, an authoritative restore basically 'overwrites' what the other domain controllers are trying to say that may be different.

When you use a non-authoritative, it restores what was there, but then goes to the other DC and updates what other changes have been made since the DC was backed up. This option would be used if you lost sometime on the DC that was NOT replicated to other servers, and you want to bring it back while updating any new changes.



For example in your question there, if you deleted an OU and it was replicated throughout the DCs, and you did a non-author restore, it would put the OU back but then take it out because the other DCs are telling it that it is gone. Where as the author restore would tell the other DCs otherwise, and keep the OU

kudzoorude

Thanks for the info. I'll put it to good use.