Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

_msdcs could not be resolved

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • _msdcs could not be resolved

    The data below is from DC which server 2003 standard. We have 2 nics. One for WAN & one for LAN. WAN is 192.168.200.16 LAN is .200 There is a 2nd dc which is erver 2000 on another subnet 192.168.2.0 All workstaions are xp sp2.

    I also have 3 pc's that like to get ip address via dhcp way up in the range at .200 while all the other ones go from .1-.80

    The 3 pc's that get ip's way up in the .200 have issues. If I connect them to the domain, sporatically they cannot see network drives. But if I put them out of the domain they can browse network shares fine. When in the domain they get errors like no domain controller or target account doesn't exist. I have tried pulling them on & off domain and also reinstalling sp2 and also ipconfig /release /renew also renaming pc's etc..why do these pc's receive ip way high up from the rest of the ip's that are handed out.

    Need help: here is dcdiag & repadmin /showrepl results

    + I have done dnsflush, netstop netlogon net start netlogon dnsfix etc..



    Domain Controller Diagnosis

    Performing initial setup:
    Done gathering initial info.

    Doing initial required tests

    Testing server: Default-First-Site\JQSERVER
    Starting test: Connectivity
    The host 178cda1d-ee16-4f2d-8256-26f714b0770d._msdcs.REMAXEXCLUSIVE.local could not be resolved to an
    IP address. Check the DNS server, DHCP, server name, etc
    Although the Guid DNS name (178cda1d-ee16-4f2d-8256-26f714b0770d._msdcs.REMAXEXCLUSIVE.local) couldn't be resolved, the server name (JQSERVER.REMAXEXCLUSIVE.local) resolved to the IP address (192.168.200.16) and was pingable. Check that the IP address is registered correctly with the DNS server
    ......................... JQSERVER failed test Connectivity

    Doing primary tests

    Testing server: Default-First-Site\JQSERVER
    Skipping all tests, because server JQSERVER is
    not responding to directory service requests

    Running partition tests on : TAPI3Directory
    Starting test: CrossRefValidation
    ......................... TAPI3Directory passed test CrossRefValidation
    Starting test: CheckSDRefDom
    ......................... TAPI3Directory passed test CheckSDRefDom

    Running partition tests on : ForestDnsZones
    Starting test: CrossRefValidation
    ......................... ForestDnsZones passed test CrossRefValidation
    Starting test: CheckSDRefDom
    ......................... ForestDnsZones passed test CheckSDRefDom

    Running partition tests on : DomainDnsZones
    Starting test: CrossRefValidation
    ......................... DomainDnsZones passed test CrossRefValidation
    Starting test: CheckSDRefDom
    ......................... DomainDnsZones passed test CheckSDRefDom

    Running partition tests on : Schema
    Starting test: CrossRefValidation
    ......................... Schema passed test CrossRefValidation
    Starting test: CheckSDRefDom
    ......................... Schema passed test CheckSDRefDom

    Running partition tests on : Configuration
    Starting test: CrossRefValidation
    ......................... Configuration passed test CrossRefValidation
    Starting test: CheckSDRefDom
    ......................... Configuration passed test CheckSDRefDom

    Running partition tests on : REMAXEXCLUSIVE
    Starting test: CrossRefValidation
    ......................... REMAXEXCLUSIVE passed test CrossRefValidation
    Starting test: CheckSDRefDom
    ......................... REMAXEXCLUSIVE passed test CheckSDRefDom

    Running enterprise tests on : REMAXEXCLUSIVE.local
    Starting test: Intersite
    ......................... REMAXEXCLUSIVE.local passed test Intersite
    Starting test: FsmoCheck
    ......................... REMAXEXCLUSIVE.local passed test FsmoCheck

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
    C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>repadmin /showrepl

    repadmin running command /showrepl against server localhost

    Default-First-Site\JQSERVER
    DC Options: IS_GC
    Site Options: (none)
    DC object GUID: 178cda1d-ee16-4f2d-8256-26f714b0770d
    DC invocationID: 178cda1d-ee16-4f2d-8256-26f714b0770d

    ==== INBOUND NEIGHBORS ======================================

    DC=REMAXEXCLUSIVE,DC=local
    Default-First-Site\JQILLINOIS via RPC
    DC object GUID: cee57f72-7686-4ec3-83a8-bdcde03b64c0
    Last attempt @ 2007-01-27 18:58:05 failed, result 8524 (0x214c):
    The DSA operation is unable to proceed because of a DNS lookup failu
    re.
    24629 consecutive failure(s).
    Last success @ 2005-12-07 18:53:05.

    CN=Configuration,DC=REMAXEXCLUSIVE,DC=local
    Default-First-Site\JQILLINOIS via RPC
    DC object GUID: cee57f72-7686-4ec3-83a8-bdcde03b64c0
    Last attempt @ 2007-01-27 18:58:05 failed, result 8524 (0x214c):
    The DSA operation is unable to proceed because of a DNS lookup failu
    re.
    31383 consecutive failure(s).
    Last success @ 2005-12-07 18:53:04.

    CN=Schema,CN=Configuration,DC=REMAXEXCLUSIVE,DC=lo cal
    Default-First-Site\JQILLINOIS via RPC
    DC object GUID: cee57f72-7686-4ec3-83a8-bdcde03b64c0
    Last attempt @ 2007-01-27 18:58:05 failed, result 8524 (0x214c):
    The DSA operation is unable to proceed because of a DNS lookup failu
    re.
    10014 consecutive failure(s).
    Last success @ 2005-12-07 18:53:04.

    Source: Default-First-Site\JQILLINOIS
    ******* 31383 CONSECUTIVE FAILURES since 2005-12-07 18:53:05
    Last error: 8524 (0x214c):
    The DSA operation is unable to proceed because of a DNS lookup failu
    re.





    thank you for your replies
    Last edited by biggles77; 28th January 2007, 09:45. Reason: Remove absurd formatting.

  • #2
    Re: _msdcs could not be resolved

    so i go out of town for a few weeks and come back to this. this will be interesting.

    shimyyuh- what where you thinking?
    "...if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said” - Alan Greenspan

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: _msdcs could not be resolved

      PLEASE DONT SHOUT
      Please dont double post
      Reported to admins
      Tom Jones
      MCT, MCSE (2000:Security & 2003), MCSA:Security & Messaging, MCDBA, MCDST, MCITP(EA, EMA, SA, EDA, ES, CS), MCTS, MCP, Sec+
      PhD, MSc, FIAP, MIITT
      IT Trainer / Consultant
      Ossian Ltd
      Scotland

      ** Remember to give credit where credit is due and leave reputation points where appropriate **

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: _msdcs could not be resolved

        Shimyyuh, the double post I can understand as the 2 posts were withing minutes of each other and a hanging post can cause you to click the Submit button a second time.

        However there is NO excuse for the absolutely ridiculous formatting you left in the post. You could have edited it out. Please do NOT do that again or I shall leave you to DanielP.
        1 1 was a racehorse.
        2 2 was 1 2.
        1 1 1 1 race 1 day,
        2 2 1 1 2

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: _msdcs could not be resolved

          thanx for all the positive reinforcement..is this how you treat 1st time members...I think you could have been way nicer...and if you took the time to post why not help me and while helping me mention the issues with my posting .

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: _msdcs could not be resolved

            And you couldn't see that you had changed the font size to 7 and then bolded it? Did you not read what you had posted to make sure it was correct?

            Also, I was nice otherwise you would have had a couple of weeks enforced holiday from the site to enable you to read the rules. If we have to go an hold the hand of every member who is supposed to be an IT professional when they make their first posts, then NO questions would be answered. Incidently, out of the 20,000 members there would have been less than 100 (more like 50) who have been unable to follow the rules and post correctly.

            Check this post. http://forums.petri.com/showthread.php?t=12986 This member had NEVER posted on a forum before but was able to post in the correct location and provide enough accurate information that enabled his post to be solved with the first answer.

            Now I am not being nice. If you have so many problems posting a simple message in user friendly software like vBulletin, how are you able to handle the complexities of a sophisticated operating system like Windows Server 2003?

            I knew I should have had a Milo before answering this post. Wait a minute I did.

            Now, I suggest you make a drawing of your network (use MS Paint if you have nothing else and save as a JPG), insert the appropriate IPs
            I also have 3 pc's that like to get ip address via dhcp way up in the range at .200 while all the other ones go from .1-.80
            Also include your DHCP Scope as I do not understand what the above quote means.

            Install the Support Tools on the 2003 server and run NETDIAG & DCDIAG. Paste the results to Notepad (in a normal sized font, Arial 10 or Times 12) and attach to the reply post. I suggest doing it this was as the thread can get very long if the results are pasted into the your reply.

            Also post any appropriate errors from the Event Viewer.

            That may do to start with.
            1 1 was a racehorse.
            2 2 was 1 2.
            1 1 1 1 race 1 day,
            2 2 1 1 2

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: _msdcs could not be resolved

              Originally posted by shimyyuh View Post
              The 3 pc's that get ip's way up in the .200 have issues. If I connect them to the domain, sporatically they cannot see network drives. But if I put them out of the domain they can browse network shares fine. When in the domain they get errors like no domain controller or target account doesn't exist. I have tried pulling them on & off domain and also reinstalling sp2 and also ipconfig /release /renew also renaming pc's etc..why do these pc's receive ip way high up from the rest of the ip's that are handed out.

              Need help: here is dcdiag & repadmin /showrepl results

              + I have done dnsflush, netstop netlogon net start netlogon dnsfix etc..

              <snipped>

              thank you for your replies
              shimyyuh:

              First, I did not see your original post in all its glory. From the first responses given by Lior_S and Biggles77, I can tell it was magnificent. You fixed it and that was good. Regarding your whinging and moaning -- stop it. This is a "pro bono [publico]" (for the public good) site. No one here gets paid to help you (makes you wonder sometimes why we do it but we do). So the least you can do is help us help you. The posting rules aren't that tough and that large fonting sure won't bring many to your aid.

              Back to your cleansed post:

              I take it "dnsflush" means "ipconfig /flushdns"?

              Also, I don't fully understand your concern regarding high DHCP assignments. If that's your concern, assign one a Static IP with all the trimmings and see if the problem goes away.

              Is DHCP handled by the W2K3 server or ??? You SURE you don't have two DHCP servers out there? These 3 (out of how many?) PC's, are they logically / physically located together -- away from the other N-3 PC's? If you do an "ipconfig /all" on one of these 3 vs. one that works, do you note any significant differences?

              Back to Biggles77 brilliant follow-on post:

              We need a serious diagram that conveys how you have "stuff" hooked up. Machines, NIC's, IP's, Gateways, DHCP, DNS, Router, etc. -- Anything that could help us ask well formed "pro bono" questions such that we (you included) can collectively solve this problem in a short period of time.

              Best of luck to us all.
              Cheers,

              Rick

              ** Remember to give credit where credit is due and leave reputation points sigpic where appropriate **

              © 2006-2099 R Valstar. This post is offered "as is" for discussion purposes only with no express or implied warranty of any kind including, but not limited to, correctness or fitness for use. Nothing herein shall be construed as advice. Attempting any activity based on information in this post is done at your own risk.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: _msdcs could not be resolved

                per Biggles77 request

                I already posted dcdiag data but I will post netdiag data on next posting

                Don't worry about the IP address issue.. I already resolved it by cloning MAC address on the problem PC's

                I looked for an edit button for the mistaken font size on the 1st post but didn't see it. I was doing the post via a remote admin utility so I may not have had the display clarity neccessary or I just missed the button.
                Last edited by shimyyuh; 29th January 2007, 01:10. Reason: spelling

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: _msdcs could not be resolved

                  I will look into either fixing it on my own or utilizing another human resource. Thank you for all the kind words and tremendous troubleshooting support. This thread may now be closed.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: _msdcs could not be resolved

                    There is no place better than here to resolve these types of issues, thats how I got here, and you did too. Your initial mistake was not apologizing for your font problem, as opposed to the large font size itself. Realize that we are all here giving our time to you in addition to our normal jobs. A quick apology would have been perfect and you would have probably had this resolved by now. You may not actually be a jerk as your initial first encounter would reflect, but we deal with many of them here and have little tolerance for stupid stuff.

                    Now first off, why do you have two DC servers in different subnets? The WAN should be on one subnet and the entire LAN on the other.
                    "...if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said” - Alan Greenspan

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X