RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size
Title: Message According to Tony Redmond's Exchange 2003 book, the HP/Compaq combined DIT file was 12GB in AD on Win2k and dropped to 7GB under 2003. Not sure how typical that is. I'd think worst case you'd end up about the same place you are now. IIRC, there aren't that many schema changes, so the structural size shouldn't change that much. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message-From: Parker, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:03 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size All, We have 53,000 user AD environment. The current size of the NTDS.DIT is just under 2GB. I am reading Chapter 9 of the 2003 planning document and on page 368 it states: "On the drive that will contain the Active Directory database, NTDS.dit, provide 0.4 gigabytes (GB) of storage for each 1,000 users. ..." Now, if this is true, that is saying when I upgrade to 2003, my database will grow from 2GB to 21GB. This seems a little hard to believe. We are going to be doing this in the lab shortly, but we are planning additional hardware, and this seems a little "off". Can anyone confirm this?
RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size
Title: Message DIT size decreases are certainly what I am seeing in the field, with an 80,000 user AD I deal with shrinking in a similar fashion to the Compaq/HP one described below Surely some people on here will be able to explain the shrinkage. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: 15 January 2004 13:19 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size According to Tony Redmond's Exchange 2003 book, the HP/Compaq combined DIT file was 12GB in AD on Win2k and dropped to 7GB under 2003. Not sure how typical that is. I'd think worst case you'd end up about the same place you are now. IIRC, there aren't that many schema changes, so the structural size shouldn't change that much. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Parker, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size All, We have 53,000 user AD environment. The current size of the NTDS.DIT is just under 2GB. I am reading Chapter 9 of the 2003 planning document and on page 368 it states: On the drive that will contain the Active Directory database, NTDS.dit, provide 0.4 gigabytes (GB) of storage for each 1,000 users. ... Now, if this is true, that is saying when I upgrade to 2003, my database will grow from 2GB to 21GB. This seems a little hard to believe. We are going to be doing this in the lab shortly, but we are planning additional hardware, and this seems a little off. Can anyone confirm this?
RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size
Title: Message I blame it on cold water. Oh, you don't mean that shrinkage. From what I understand, its due to improvements in the database format and how data is stored within. I'm guessing that they've rearranged the table structures to better fit the actual usage patterns. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message-From: Joe Baguley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size DIT size decreases are certainly what I am seeing in the field, with an 80,000 user AD I deal with shrinking in a similar fashion to the Compaq/HP one described below... Surely some people on here will be able to explain the shrinkage From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger SeielstadSent: 15 January 2004 13:19To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size According to Tony Redmond's Exchange 2003 book, the HP/Compaq combined DIT file was 12GB in AD on Win2k and dropped to 7GB under 2003. Not sure how typical that is. I'd think worst case you'd end up about the same place you are now. IIRC, there aren't that many schema changes, so the structural size shouldn't change that much. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message-From: Parker, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:03 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size All, We have 53,000 user AD environment. The current size of the NTDS.DIT is just under 2GB. I am reading Chapter 9 of the 2003 planning document and on page 368 it states: "On the drive that will contain the Active Directory database, NTDS.dit, provide 0.4 gigabytes (GB) of storage for each 1,000 users. ..." Now, if this is true, that is saying when I upgrade to 2003, my database will grow from 2GB to 21GB. This seems a little hard to believe. We are going to be doing this in the lab shortly, but we are planning additional hardware, and this seems a little "off". Can anyone confirm this?
RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size
Title: Message sigur ... Cristian Zaharia Network Administrator Information Technology Zapp [EMAIL PROTECTED] +40.788.101.048 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger SeielstadSent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:51 PMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size I blame it on cold water. Oh, you don't mean that shrinkage. From what I understand, its due to improvements in the database format and how data is stored within. I'm guessing that they've rearranged the table structures to better fit the actual usage patterns. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message-From: Joe Baguley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size DIT size decreases are certainly what I am seeing in the field, with an 80,000 user AD I deal with shrinking in a similar fashion to the Compaq/HP one described below... Surely some people on here will be able to explain the shrinkage From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger SeielstadSent: 15 January 2004 13:19To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size According to Tony Redmond's Exchange 2003 book, the HP/Compaq combined DIT file was 12GB in AD on Win2k and dropped to 7GB under 2003. Not sure how typical that is. I'd think worst case you'd end up about the same place you are now. IIRC, there aren't that many schema changes, so the structural size shouldn't change that much. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message-From: Parker, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:03 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size All, We have 53,000 user AD environment. The current size of the NTDS.DIT is just under 2GB. I am reading Chapter 9 of the 2003 planning document and on page 368 it states: "On the drive that will contain the Active Directory database, NTDS.dit, provide 0.4 gigabytes (GB) of storage for each 1,000 users. ..." Now, if this is true, that is saying when I upgrade to 2003, my database will grow from 2GB to 21GB. This seems a little hard to believe. We are going to be doing this in the lab shortly, but we are planning additional hardware, and this seems a little "off". Can anyone confirm this?
RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size
Title: Message W2K3AD does single instance store of security descriptors which can save a lot of space over W2K AD. Robbie Allen http://www.rallenhome.com/ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger SeielstadSent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:51 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size I blame it on cold water. Oh, you don't mean that shrinkage. From what I understand, its due to improvements in the database format and how data is stored within. I'm guessing that they've rearranged the table structures to better fit the actual usage patterns. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message-From: Joe Baguley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size DIT size decreases are certainly what I am seeing in the field, with an 80,000 user AD I deal with shrinking in a similar fashion to the Compaq/HP one described below... Surely some people on here will be able to explain the shrinkage From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger SeielstadSent: 15 January 2004 13:19To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size According to Tony Redmond's Exchange 2003 book, the HP/Compaq combined DIT file was 12GB in AD on Win2k and dropped to 7GB under 2003. Not sure how typical that is. I'd think worst case you'd end up about the same place you are now. IIRC, there aren't that many schema changes, so the structural size shouldn't change that much. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message-From: Parker, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:03 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size All, We have 53,000 user AD environment. The current size of the NTDS.DIT is just under 2GB. I am reading Chapter 9 of the 2003 planning document and on page 368 it states: "On the drive that will contain the Active Directory database, NTDS.dit, provide 0.4 gigabytes (GB) of storage for each 1,000 users. ..." Now, if this is true, that is saying when I upgrade to 2003, my database will grow from 2GB to 21GB. This seems a little hard to believe. We are going to be doing this in the lab shortly, but we are planning additional hardware, and this seems a little "off". Can anyone confirm this?
RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size
Title: Message A number of things are different in the storage of data in the Windows Server 2003 DIT. The most relevant is that the database now uses a single instance store for security descriptors, therefore the application of ACEs to directory object often require less directory space. In HPs case, the single instance store and the deletion of distributed link tracking objects freed a significant amount of directory space. However the actual reduction in DIT size is not actually realized until the DIT undergoes an offline defrag. Of course the reduction is also seen on newly promoted DCs. Aric From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:51 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size I blame it on cold water. Oh, you don't mean that shrinkage. From what I understand, its due to improvements in the database format and how data is stored within. I'm guessing that they've rearranged the table structures to better fit the actual usage patterns. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Joe Baguley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size DIT size decreases are certainly what I am seeing in the field, with an 80,000 user AD I deal with shrinking in a similar fashion to the Compaq/HP one described below... Surely some people on here will be able to explain the shrinkage From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: 15 January 2004 13:19 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size According to Tony Redmond's Exchange 2003 book, the HP/Compaq combined DIT file was 12GB in AD on Win2k and dropped to 7GB under 2003. Not sure how typical that is. I'd think worst case you'd end up about the same place you are now. IIRC, there aren't that many schema changes, so the structural size shouldn't change that much. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Parker, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size All, We have 53,000 user AD environment. The current size of the NTDS.DIT is just under 2GB. I am reading Chapter 9 of the 2003 planning document and on page 368 it states: On the drive that will contain the Active Directory database, NTDS.dit, provide 0.4 gigabytes (GB) of storage for each 1,000 users. ... Now, if this is true, that is saying when I upgrade to 2003, my database will grow from 2GB to 21GB. This seems a little hard to believe. We are going to be doing this in the lab shortly, but we are planning additional hardware, and this seems a little off. Can anyone confirm this?
RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size
Title: Message You do have to calculate an additional 15-20% of DIT-space on your 2000 DCs during the upgrade of a forest to 2003 (assuming the current 2000 DIT doesn't contain a load of whitespace). This is mainly due to the fact, that ADPREP adds various additional permissions on objects in AD, and as 2000 doesn't support single instance store for the security descriptors, the ACEs get stamped on every object in the namespace... This increase in ACEs will result in a noticibly larger DIT size on your existing 2000 DCs in the forest. As Aric pointet out, the new 2003 DCs implemented at HP immediately showed the benefit of the single instance ACE store, which futher improved quite a bit when - after upgrading/introducing sufficient 2003 DCs - our DNS was changed to leverge APP paritions (this way, no DNS records required to be stamped with ACLs in the Domain Namespace and they were also not replicated to the GC...). Removing the distributed link tracking objects is a recommendation even for folks that keep running 2000 = DLT creates a lot of garbage objects in AD, which is not leveraged by any application (and is turned off by defaultin 2003). So our DIT decrease from 12GB to 7GB is rather typical (MS had similar values) - the sizing guideline in the deployment paper must assume that you will be storing JPG files of your users in AD to identify them ;-) /Guido From: Bernard, Aric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Donnerstag, 15. Januar 2004 18:03To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size A number of things are different in the storage of data in the Windows Server 2003 DIT. The most relevant is that the database now uses a single instance store for security descriptors, therefore the application of ACEs to directory object often require less directory space. In HPs case, the single instance store and the deletion of distributed link tracking objects freed a significant amount of directory space. However the actual reduction in DIT size is not actually realized until the DIT undergoes an offline defrag. Of course the reduction is also seen on newly promoted DCs. Aric From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger SeielstadSent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:51 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size I blame it on cold water. Oh, you don't mean that shrinkage. From what I understand, its due to improvements in the database format and how data is stored within. I'm guessing that they've rearranged the table structures to better fit the actual usage patterns. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message-From: Joe Baguley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size DIT size decreases are certainly what I am seeing in the field, with an 80,000 user AD I deal with shrinking in a similar fashion to the Compaq/HP one described below... Surely some people on here will be able to explain the shrinkage From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger SeielstadSent: 15 January 2004 13:19To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size According to Tony Redmond's Exchange 2003 book, the HP/Compaq combined DIT file was 12GB in AD on Win2k and dropped to 7GB under 2003. Not sure how typical that is. I'd think worst case you'd end up about the same place you are now. IIRC, there aren't that many schema changes, so the structural size shouldn't change that much. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message-From: Parker, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:03 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size All, We have 53,000 user AD environment. The current size of the NTDS.DIT is just under 2GB. I am reading Chapter 9 of the 2003 planning document and on page 368 it states: "On the drive that will contain the Active Directory database, NTDS.dit, provide 0.4 gigabytes (GB) of storage for each 1,000 users. ..." Now, if this is true, that is saying when I upgrade to 2003, my database will grow from 2GB to 21GB. This seems a little hard to believe. We are going to be doing this in the lab shortly, but we are planning additional hardware, and this seems a little "off". Can anyone confirm this?
RE: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size
Title: Message You probably should actually see a decrease in size simply from the new ACL storage alone. It is easy enough to prove out in the lab though. Thedoc doesn't know what kind of data you specifically are storing, it is making some assumptions that may not be valid for you. joe From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Parker, EdwardSent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:03 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [ActiveDir] 2003 NTDS.DIT size All, We have 53,000 user AD environment. The current size of the NTDS.DIT is just under 2GB. I am reading Chapter 9 of the 2003 planning document and on page 368 it states: "On the drive that will contain the Active Directory database, NTDS.dit, provide 0.4 gigabytes (GB) of storage for each 1,000 users. ..." Now, if this is true, that is saying when I upgrade to 2003, my database will grow from 2GB to 21GB. This seems a little hard to believe. We are going to be doing this in the lab shortly, but we are planning additional hardware, and this seems a little "off". Can anyone confirm this?
