Sorry no, I am on crack. I was thinking maxvals for ranging and applied it to max objects for a page. It is definitely 1000 objects per page just like in 2K. I was just explaining yet again to someone at work why we need to keep DL sizes under 1000 direct members on 2K DCs. I seem to be thinking a lot about Exchange specific AD stuff as of late.
On the positive side, the reasoning is the same for both limits. :o) Looking forward to the wine and beer and mixed drinks and just plain relaxing and not running 10-20 hours every day and then sleeping the remainder. The next time I sign a book deal it will be after I have written the book. Writing part time to a deadline (especially one that gets moved up) is equivalent to saying you don't want a personal life. :o) You should probably be getting on a plane pretty soon to get here huh? ;o) Thanks for catching my mistake. joe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Murray Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP search limitations Hey Joe I'm missing something here, so hopefully you can clarify it for me. MaxPageSize is set at 1000 in both Windows 2000 and 2003. MaxValRange increased from 1000 in 2K to 1500 in 2K3. My understanding is that the MaxPageSize corresponds to the maximum number of objects returned in a single search result, whereas MaxValRange is all about the number of values returned in a search result for a single attribute. I would have thought Neil's query was more about the MaxPageSize? Tony PS. Happy to to discuss this over a bottle of decent red wine with you and the others next week. :-) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Friday, 23 September 2005 6:44 a.m. To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP search limitations The limit is 1000 on 2K and 1500 on K3/ADAM. These values can be tweaked. The general purpose reason is to conserve resources on the LDAP server. Consider result sets have to be pulled into memory to be encoded to send back to clients. If you have lots and lots of simultaneous queries with huge resultsets you could quickly cause harm to an LDAP server as it runs low on resources. As to why MS did it and others didn't. Possibly the others are not thinking properly about large scale or heavily loaded implementations. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ActiveDir] LDAP search limitations Apologies for asking this question, since it's been posed before (?), but can anyone offer me a brief description of why AD only returns (by default) 1024 entries when an LDAP search is performed? Is it a question of performance? Why is the searcher not offered all records that meet the search criteria? Questions have arisen as to why MS implemented a limit since (apparently), other LDAP implementations do not enforce these limits. thanks, neil --------------------------------------- Neil Ruston Nomura International Plc Tel: 020 7521 3481 [EMAIL PROTECTED] PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any further action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of communication and Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted by law, accept responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or completeness of, or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling code in, this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated this email: (1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as, investment research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation or offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc does not provide investment services to private customers. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand, London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies. List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ ######################################################################## #### This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by NetIQ MailMarshal at Gen-i ######################################################################## #### List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
