Much of AD's heritage lies in the old Exchange directory, which was ESE-based.
-gil -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 8:38 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD > One thing I am curious about though is why MS opted for JET > as the DB of choice for AD.. was it the only viable option > at the time ? What do you feel is wrong with ESE (aka Jet Blue)? > What's the ceiling on actual database size before it caves in (performance-wise)? Max size for an ESE DB for AD is ~16TB (8KB pages * 2147483646 max pages [1]). As for when it caves perf wise from an AD standpoint it really depends on what you are doing with it and what you have indexed from what I have seen. If someone is issuing crappy inefficient queries it will seem to be pretty slow pretty fast with relatively little data. The largest DB I have seen in production has been ~20GB and that was with W2K on a GC and a bunch of that data shouldn't have been in the AD like duplicated ACEs and misc unneeded objects, etc. Going to K3 would probably reduce that DB to about 10-12GB or better due to single instance store, cleanup would reduce it even further. One Fortune 5 company I have worked with had a K3 GC DB in the area of 5GB and that was for some 250,000 users with Exchange and multiple custom attributes. joe [1] See the docs for JetCreateDatabase - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/ese/ese /jet createdatabase.asp?frame=true -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mylo Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:04 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD That's a good point about plonking stuff in AD.... a case of once a good thing comes along everyone wants to climb aboard. I remember doing ZENworks stuff with Novell where all the application configuration information for software distribution was shunted into NDS/E-Directory... all that bloat adds up replication-wise (still, at least there was partitioning). One thing I am curious about though is why MS opted for JET as the DB of choice for AD.. was it the only viable option at the time ? What's the ceiling on actual database size before it caves in (performance-wise)? Mylo joe wrote: >I am going to basically say what the other said only I am going to put >it this way > >IF the data needs to be available at all locations or a majority of >locations where your domain controllers are located, consider adding >the data to AD. > >IF the data is going to be needed only at a couple of sites or a single >site, put them into another store. My preference being AD/AM unless you >need to do some complicated joins or queries of the data that LDAP >doesn't support. > >There is also the possibility of using app partitions but if you were >going to go that far, just use AD/AM. > >The thing I have about sticking this data into AD is that AD is >becoming, in many companies, a dumping ground of all the crap that was >in all the other directories in the company. I realize this was the >initial view from MS on how this should work but I worked in a large >company and thought that was silly even then. > >The number one most important thing for AD is to authenticate Windows users. >Every time you dump more crap into AD you are working towards impacting >that capability or the capability to quickly restore or the ability to >quickly add more DCs. The more I see the one stop everything loaded >into ADs the more I think that the NOS directory should be NOS only. >Plus, I wonder how long before we hit some interesting object size >limits. I have asked for details from some MS folks a couple of times >on the issues with admin limit exceeded errors that you get when >overpopulating a normal multivalue attribute (i.e. not linked) and it >causing no other attributes to be added to the object. I wonder what other limits like that exist. > > > > joe > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Shaff >Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 12:16 PM >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >Subject: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD > >Group, > >My manager wanted me to check, even though, I don't think that it is >possible, but, I will present the question. > >He would like to add some custom fields, about 30, to AD. He would >like to add bio information into AD to be pulled by Sharepoint and >other applications for people to read. I think that this is a waste of >time, space and effort. However, it is not my call and if this is what he wants.... > >What are everyone's thoughts on the topic? > >Thanks >S >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >List archive: >http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >List archive: >http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
