Mylo, from the way you speak of JET, I suspect you might not know of the two JETs, and be thinking that JET = Access ... make sure you're "edJETicated" (man, I slay me! ;), see Notes at bottom of this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/ese/ese/portal.asp This frequent confusion, is the reason we use the more desired term, ESE. The two JETs once compatible at the top level API, have not even had to maintain API compatibility for nearly 10 years, so they are quite different.
If the _active amount of data_ (and the active amount of data, can be grossly enlarged by bad queries) exceeds memory, some operations will probably be thrown down to random disk IO speed (100 IOs / second is a standard single spindle/disk) ... ergo you get slow quick. And like most database servers in such a situation, you can often throw hardware at it. We have Exchange servers with a TB of databases attached, and a much higher update rate, BUT a big SAN to satisfy the IO load. With AD you have the added advantage of being able to throw RAM at the situations, with a 64-bit native OS and 32 GBs of RAM, a 29 GB database performs quite well. So where AD caves in, is very hardware and workload dependant ... joe's production numbers aren't even interesting anymore. (implying many customers are in production with much bigger databases) ;-) Cheers, BrettSh [msft] JET Blue, not JET Red Developer. On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Gil Kirkpatrick wrote: > Much of AD's heritage lies in the old Exchange directory, which was > ESE-based. > > -gil > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe > Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 8:38 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD > > > One thing I am curious about though is why MS opted for JET > > as the DB of choice for AD.. was it the only viable option > > at the time ? > > What do you feel is wrong with ESE (aka Jet Blue)? > > > > What's the ceiling on actual database size before it caves in > (performance-wise)? > > Max size for an ESE DB for AD is ~16TB (8KB pages * 2147483646 max > pages [1]). As for when it caves perf wise from an AD standpoint it > really depends on what you are doing with it and what you have indexed > from what I have seen. If someone is issuing crappy inefficient > queries it will seem to be pretty slow pretty fast with relatively > little data. > > The largest DB I have seen in production has been ~20GB and that was > with W2K on a GC and a bunch of that data shouldn't have been in the > AD like duplicated ACEs and misc unneeded objects, etc. Going to K3 > would probably reduce that DB to about 10-12GB or better due to single > instance store, cleanup would reduce it even further. One Fortune 5 > company I have worked with had a K3 GC DB in the area of 5GB and that > was for some 250,000 users with Exchange and multiple custom > attributes. > > joe > > [1] See the docs for JetCreateDatabase - > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/ese/ese > /jet > createdatabase.asp?frame=true > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mylo > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD > > That's a good point about plonking stuff in AD.... a case of once a good > thing comes along everyone wants to climb aboard. I remember doing > ZENworks > stuff with Novell where all the application configuration information > for > software distribution was shunted into NDS/E-Directory... all that bloat > adds up replication-wise (still, at least there was partitioning). > > One thing I am curious about though is why MS opted for JET as the DB > of > choice for AD.. was it the only viable option at the time ? What's the > ceiling on actual database size before it caves in (performance-wise)? > > Mylo > > joe wrote: > > >I am going to basically say what the other said only I am going to put > >it this way > > > >IF the data needs to be available at all locations or a majority of > >locations where your domain controllers are located, consider adding > >the data to AD. > > > >IF the data is going to be needed only at a couple of sites or a single > > >site, put them into another store. My preference being AD/AM unless you > > >need to do some complicated joins or queries of the data that LDAP > >doesn't support. > > > >There is also the possibility of using app partitions but if you were > >going to go that far, just use AD/AM. > > > >The thing I have about sticking this data into AD is that AD is > >becoming, in many companies, a dumping ground of all the crap that was > >in all the other directories in the company. I realize this was the > >initial view from MS on how this should work but I worked in a large > >company and thought that was silly even then. > > > >The number one most important thing for AD is to authenticate Windows > users. > >Every time you dump more crap into AD you are working towards impacting > > >that capability or the capability to quickly restore or the ability to > >quickly add more DCs. The more I see the one stop everything loaded > >into ADs the more I think that the NOS directory should be NOS only. > >Plus, I wonder how long before we hit some interesting object size > >limits. I have asked for details from some MS folks a couple of times > >on the issues with admin limit exceeded errors that you get when > >overpopulating a normal multivalue attribute (i.e. not linked) and it > >causing no other attributes to be added to the object. I wonder what > other > limits like that exist. > > > > > > > > joe > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Shaff > >Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 12:16 PM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: [ActiveDir] Adding custom fields to AD > > > >Group, > > > >My manager wanted me to check, even though, I don't think that it is > >possible, but, I will present the question. > > > >He would like to add some custom fields, about 30, to AD. He would > >like to add bio information into AD to be pulled by Sharepoint and > >other applications for people to read. I think that this is a waste of > >time, space and effort. However, it is not my call and if this is what > he > wants.... > > > >What are everyone's thoughts on the topic? > > > >Thanks > >S > >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/ > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > 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/
