It may not be the registry that limits your servers' scalability. For instance the list of scopes could be loaded into a memory in a linked list, and thusly the scalability to many scopes degrades linearly (linear is usually unacceptable).
Just a thought. Cheers, Brett Shirley On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Mulnick, Al wrote: > That helps a great deal, thank you. > > Although I'll still need to know some of these limits, it looks like I'll > have to go to regmon and find out. > > Brett, I appreciate the thought and understand that the leases are recorded > in the DB, but it won't be one scope. It'll be multiple scopes. > > Thanks folks. This helps out a great deal. > > Al > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Patrick > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 11:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > If you are only concerned about the RSL - does it help to know that in XP > and greater this isnt an issue? > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;292726 > > steve > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brett Shirley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:45 PM > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > > > > > So I got the info I needed out of band. > > > > If you manage the entire 10.*.*.* as a single scope I suspect* that you > > won't have any worries. I happen to know that DHCP uses an ESE database, > > and looking at my sample DHCP DB (~66k records), it is quite clear** this > > is where it stores IPs it gives out. Ergo the size of the IP blocks is > > irrelevant to usage of registry, only the number of scopes you want to > > define. > > > > I suspect* (there is that word again), that just the definition of the > > scope is in the registry, but (I'm 87% sure of this part) the actual per > > IP storage is pushed off to ESE / JET Blue (no, not the same JET that is > > in Microsoft Access, that's JET Red). > > > > Cheers, > > Brett Shirley > > > > * suspect = really that just means I'm making this all up. > > > > ** by clear, I mean the columns are called "HardwareAddress", "IpAddress", > > "LeaseTerminates", "ServerName", etc ... > > > > On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Brett Shirley wrote: > > > >> 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/ > >> > > > > 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/
