Linked list is really only a good data structure when n = 3-ish. When n > 3, linked lists look amateur.
I don't really know if it is a linked list, there are worse data structures, unsorted array, that you completely reallocate to expand, that would be worse ... Cheers, -Brett Shirley On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Roger Seielstad wrote: > I bet you're right. Based on some other design decisions I've seen in > Windows lately, I bet they do load scopes as a linked list. > > -------- > Roger Seielstad > E-mail Geek & MS-MVP > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley > > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 8:30 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > > > 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/ > > > > > > 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/
