At 16:17 6/4/2002, you wrote: The 5000 member limit does not include Primary Group memberships. As users will, by default, have the "Domain Users" group as their Primary Group, the limit doesn't come into play. The "Domain Users" group in of itself is not special; again, it has the 5000 limit, however since most members use it as their Primary Group, it's typically a non-issue.
>Does this apply to the "Domain Users" group ?!? > > > >I ran a script against our Domain and returned over 10,000 users that are >a member of "Domain Users" > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:46 PM >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory Limitations - max 5000 users per >group? > > > >The 5000 user limit is not a 5000 "user" limit, it is a 5000 Direct member >limit. I don't think anyone in their right mind would have 5000 users in >one group. I would suggest nesting them to make them more manageable anyways. > > > >FYI, .NET removes this limitation for the nutty people. > >-----Original Message----- >From: AMAN, ALICE L. (JSC-GT4) (NASA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:34 PM >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory Limitations - max 5000 users per >group? > >Someone on slashdot.org (pro-linux site) indicated real-world problems with AD > >including: > > > >"Groups aren't scalable, supporting max 5000 users." > > > >I want to recommend that we keep our people directory flat but if groups >have a maximum of > >5000 users, this will be an obstacle. Would anyone care to comment? > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Gil Kirkpatrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:49 AM >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory Limitations > >Eoin, > > > >Actually the size of the directory itself doesn't really affect >replication traffic (except when you bring up a new domain controller). >Its the amount of data that is changed, and how frequently it is changed, >that drives the replication traffic. > > > >-gil >-----Original Message----- >From: T Bowman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:04 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory Limitations >Eoin, > I do not believe there is a hard limit. I do know it is capable of > handling millions of objects. >However, keep in mind that the size will affect replication and thus your >network. > >T. >----------------------- >Tony Bowman, MCSE, MCSA, CCNA >Harvest, AL >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eoin Mooney >Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:48 AM >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Subject: [ActiveDir] Active Directory Limitations >Hi all, > >I know this is probably a very general question , but is there a limit >with relation to active directory size. >Number of folders created , data stored ,etc,etc > > >Regards > >Eoin List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
