Is the 10.*.*.* block a single scope? Cheers, Brett
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Roger Seielstad wrote: > Well, my friend, you could always break out a copy of RegMon from > Sysinternals and build a dozen or so representative scopes out on a lab box. > That should give you the per scope cost info you're after. > > >>From there, it seems like the number you really want is the maximum registry > size for a Win2k3 implementation. > > Personally, I never got the 80/20 split jazz. I always do 50/50 (or 100% on > one server in my current config, but that's a whole other story - redundancy > isn't terribly important for DHCP with the boxes I manage). > > -------- > Roger Seielstad > E-mail Geek & MS-MVP > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al > > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:13 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > > > Thanks John. I saw that one as well, but it doesn't tell me > > enough information about how much of an impact I can expect > > on the registry. I understand the paging file and the RSL, > > but I can't get a solid amount of information about a) what > > to expect to be put in the registry *exactly* and > > b) what exactly each registry entry can possibly take in > > terms of size. > > > > A thousand scopes? Nice to hear, but that doesn't solve the > > problem for me. > > > > > > For more background, I currently have similar running across > > four servers in two network sites. No problem. What I want > > to do is isolate two different business types. As you can > > imagine from the domain name, we're a financial institution > > and we have retail branches across all lines of business. We > > also have back-office needs. To make this more reliable, I > > need to take into account the 8th layer and design > > accordingly. My current track is to simplify by separation > > and put the branch scopes on two servers and the > > rest/exceptions on the other two. To do that, I need to know > > the limits. > > The additional benefit of knowing the quantifiable benefits > > is the ability to predict capacity and lifespan of the > > solution. That obviously plays into lifecycle management > > planning of the solution. Due to the business nature of > > finacial organizations, I have to plan for twice the capacity > > of current. > > In practice, that means that I have to at least know the > > capacity abilities of the current solution or the future > > solution enough to know that if an acquisition occurs, I can > > either deploy more capacity else know that I can use the > > current to that scale. > > > > The docs I've found so far, including the one you posted and > > the information from Jorge were too high-level for what I'm > > after. I appreciate them but I still need additional > > information to make this design right. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thanks John, > > > > Al > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John > > Reijnders > > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 11:29 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > > > Hi Al, > > > > Looking in the Windows Server System Reference Architecture > > you can read: > > > > "... scaling the DHCP service involves network infrastructure > > issues for most enterprises." -> However, according to your > > question this does not apply for your network. Lucky you ;-)! > > > > The following quote relates to your question: > > > > "You can create an unlimited number of scopes on a DHCP > > server. However, a DHCP server should ideally host no more > > than 1,000 scopes. When adding a large number of scopes to > > the server, be aware that each scope creates a corresponding > > need for additional disk space for the DHCP server registry > > and the server paging file. > > > > Before deployment, you should test your DHCP servers on the > > network to determine any limitations and abilities of your > > hardware and to see whether the network architecture, > > traffic, and other factors affect DHCP server performance." > > > > However, it still doesn't answer it. However, there is a > > specific article about planning DHCP networks that might (not > > sure) deal with this topic. > > This is the URL: > > http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2 > > 003/standard/p > > roddocs/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows > Serv/2003/stan > > dard/proddocs/en-us/sag_DHCP_imp_PlanningNetworks.asp > > > > Good luck! > > John Reijnders > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al > > Sent: maandag 3 januari 2005 17:08 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > > > Thanks Jorge, I did see and read that. Unless I'm missing > > something in there, it doesn't answer the questions however. > > It does give some ideas, but it's not detailed enough to help. > > > > Al > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Jorge de Almeida Pinto > > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 11:02 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > > > Hi Al, > > > > Give a try with the W2K3 Deployment Kit - Designing Network > > Services -> > > http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2 > > 003/all/deploy > > guide/en-us/DNSBC_DHC_OVERVIEW.asp > > > > Regards, > > Jorge > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al > > Sent: maandag 3 januari 2005 15:15 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > > > > > > > I'm looking for more precise information for DHCP sizing and > > I'd appreciate any real-world information as well. > > > > What I'm trying to find out is how much registry space one > > DHCP server requires at max capacity. I realize that a DHCP > > server puts information in the registry for each scope. What > > exactly it's supposed to put in there under any given > > circumstance is a little less clear. How much space it > > requires or a way to estimate how much possible space could > > be used is totally unclear. I did find some information > > about RSL (max registry size > > basically) and about Microsoft's case study with their DHCP > > usage. That's not enough information though. > > > > I'd like to find out what my limits are. For example, I'm > > interested in what would happen if I put the entire 10.x.x.x > > netblock on a single DHCP > > server. Before you tell me that shouldn't happen because of fault > > tolerance or network topology, I can tell you that network > > bandwidth is not a problem I suffer from. Fault tolerance > > for DHCP is often done via settings and the 80/20 split > > concept, although at some point it's possible that one server > > would have to achieve 100% during a failure scenario. Also, > > what is 80% capacity for one server? > > > > Enough of the rambling... If anyone could point me in a > > better direction, > > I'd appreciate it. At worst, if you have any tools that > > would help to measure registry impact, that would be > > appreciated. I haven't investigated that route yet, but > > suspect that sysinternals likely has something I can use. > > I'm interested in the theoretical and the folks that wrote the code. > > > > Questions I need to answer: > > What is the max possible impact of the DHCP application on > > the registry? > > What is the practical limit of a DHCP server in quantifiable terms? > > > > Additional question from me: > > Does anyone have any documents they can point me to that give > > the possible registry impact when scaling a DHCP server? > > > > > > TIA > > > > (Happy New Year BTW to those following the Gregorian > > Calendarical system ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Al Mulnick > > > > "I strive to be unique. Just like everybody else" > > > > > > > > > > This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended > > recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, > > confidential information and/or be subject to legal > > privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or > > used by, any other party. If you are not an intended > > recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any > > attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you. > > > > 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/ > > > > This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended > > recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, > > confidential information and/or be subject to legal > > privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or > > used by, any other party. If you are not an intended > > recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any > > attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you. > > 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/ > > 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/ > > > > > > 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/ > 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/
