,欢迎您!
登录您的红帽帐户
尚未注册?下面是您应该进行注册的一些理由:
- 从一个位置浏览知识库文章、管理支持案例和订阅、下载更新以及执行其他操作。
- 查看组织内的用户,以及编辑他们的帐户信息、偏好设置和权限。
- 管理您的红帽认证,查看考试历史记录,以及下载认证相关徽标和文档。
您可以使用红帽帐户访问您的会员个人资料、偏好设置以及其他服务,具体决取决于您的客户状态。
出于安全考虑,如果您在公共计算机上通过红帽服务进行培训或测试,完成后务必退出登录。
退出红帽博客
Blog menu
In last year’s blog series, I covered both direct and indirect Active Directory integration options. But I never explained what we actually suggest / recommend. Some customers looking at indirect integration saw only the overhead of providing an interim server and the costs related to managing it. To be clear, these costs are real and the overhead does exist. But we still recommend
indirect integration over the direct one. So... why is that?
I want to point out that the overhead and costs associated with the direct integration are sometimes hidden and often neglected when deciding which path to follow. In an attempt to start small and to save time and energy, some companies embark on the direct integration path to achieve their immediate goals and to solve their immediate challenges without looking at growth trajectories and future needs.
My advice: do not get trapped into the “we will figure it out later” approach. Direct integration will soon lead to "cruft" and high maintenance costs. As I mentioned in a previous blog the direct integration solution is good for small environments (up to several dozens systems) when it is not too hard and costly to switch. But the more systems you add, the harder it gets to manage.
We have heard the objection to the indirect or trust approach that, in some cases, it is not that easy to promote an indirect solution and there may be corporate policies or politics that make this choice difficult. But let me assure you that it is worth making your case! Plan ahead. Plan for the future so that you can stay competitive and adapt quickly.
Again, always know that we're here to help! This blog series gives you arguments to fight your political battles. Let the force be with you!