The limit on the number non-linked multi-values (~800 - ~1300 depending) probably wouldn't apply (even if you put each post for a given thread it's own value) ... the max LDAP packet size (10MBs) would apply though, your posts can get Looooooooooonnnnnnnnnnngggggg.
Cheers, BrettSh On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, joe wrote: > I don't know, some of my posts might invoke the dreaded Admin Limit Exceeded > in ADAM... You know the one... The one you were going to write a blog entry > about when there were too many entries in a non-linked multivalue > attribute... > > :) > > > -- > O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fleischman > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts > > You could build the archive on ADAM, and enable the indexes to allow for > efficient medial substring indexes. :) > > ~Eric > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Murray > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:07 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts > > Great info ~Eric! > > The link to the start of the thread is: > > http://www.activedir.org/ml/msg08620.aspx > > We've just moved the archive onto the ActiveDir.org web site and we're > having one or two teething problems with the search feature. :-) > > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fleischman > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2006 10:38 a.m. > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts > > After this thread (I believe Dean asked what the error was at one point, > but I can't find that tip of the thread right now), I decided to go > ahead and test this. > http://blogs.technet.com/efleis/archive/2006/06/08/434255.aspx > > I'll blog some more on other things we found along the way over the next > few days. > > ~Eric > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Fleischman > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:39 AM > To: '[email protected]' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts > > > DNTs are reusable in ESE, however ADs implementation does not allow > DNTs > > to be released / reused on a single server, and the database will only > > > "reuse" them if you recreate the DB by repromoting (cause the data is > > replicated from other servers into a virgin ESE, and DNTs are assigned > > > from the beginning at this point). > > Basically, yes. Though I would point out, this is hardly reusing > DNTs...this is more starting over. :) For the sake of clarity I would > point out that such a re-promotion would need to be over the wire and > not IFM. IFM just picks up where the last left off, as you are using the > old database again, and so the same AD level rules apply. > > ~Eric > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ulf B. > Simon-Weidner > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts > > >* DNTs (to me) are _not_ a component of the directory > > IIRC they are like a (primary/foreign) key in a database. Technically > not needed by the database layer, and not needed by the application, but > needed to keep the data together for the application. So if you look at > AD from the outside it won't be referenced, if you look at ESE it's just > a DB and doesn't care about the data stored within, but you still need > it in between to store the AD in the ESE. > Right? > > >* DNTs are not reusable > > Unique per Server and don't provide any reference across servers. If AD > looks for a parent object by looking up it's known DNT (stored with the > child), ESE would fail in that moment, AD would not able to go to > another server and look up the same DNT in it's database. The AD is > distributed, the ESE is local, and DNTs are part of the local table. > > If I understand correctly: > DNTs are reusable in ESE, however ADs implementation does not allow DNTs > to be released / reused on a single server, and the database will only > "reuse" > them if you recreate the DB by repromoting (cause the data is replicated > from other servers into a virgin ESE, and DNTs are assigned from the > beginning at this point). > > Right? > > Gruesse - Sincerely, > > Ulf B. Simon-Weidner > > MVP-Book "Windows XP - Die Expertentipps": http://tinyurl.com/44zcz > Weblog: http://msmvps.org/UlfBSimonWeidner > Website: http://www.windowsserverfaq.org > Profile: > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=35E388DE-4885-4308-B489-F2F1214 > C811 > D > > > > |-----Original Message----- > |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Wells > |Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 1:18 AM > |To: Send - AD mailing list > |Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts > | > |Inline is my take on an IM conv. Brett and I just had, the result and > |content of which turned up some interesting (to me at least) > |implementation details. The short story is - > | > |* DNTs (to me) are _not_ a component of the directory > | - they _are_ a component of the layer that bridges the two > (dblayer) > | - to Brett, I believe he sees them within the sum of "what is > the > |directory" > |* DNTs (to both Brett and I) are not part of ESE > |* DNTs are limited (as Eric says) to 2^31 (~2.1 billion rows) > |* DNTs are not reusable > | > |I hope the summary and conversational text inline proves useful. > | > |-- > |Dean Wells > |MSEtechnology > |* Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |http://msetechnology.com > | > | > | > |> -----Original Message----- > |> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > |Brett Shirley > |> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:11 PM > |> To: [email protected] > |> Cc: Send - AD mailing list > |> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts > |> > |> > |> Dean, I didn't understand this comment ... > |> > But, dude, seriously, you weren't aware that AD's ESE > |used a 32 bit > |> DNT? > |> > Methinks perhaps you're muddling in the realms of personal > |> interpretation > ... though I'm quite certain you'll argue that too > |> ... ESE purist :0p > |> > |> Are you claiming that ESE knows what a DNT is? > | > |Not at all ... but IMO, neither does the directory ... and per our IM, > |the dblayer knows what they are (after all, DNT = distinguished name > |tag ... > |blatantly not an ESE term ... and dblayer = database layer ... > |not a directory term ... hmmm) > | > |> A DNT is an entirely AD concept, ESE has no idea what a DNT is. > | > |Nod. > | > |> ESE also has no concept of linked-values, or the link_table. > | > |Now this was news to me, so here's the summary: ESE has tables > |+ columns + indices over columns. The dblayer forms the > |bridge between two technologies, one molding the behavior of the other > |(dblayer molds ESE). > |ESE maintains no referential integrity, the dblayer does this ... > |including link-pairs <-- this part was especially surprising to me. > | > |> This is the 2nd time you've confused the AD dblayer (what maintains > |> the AD schema on an ESE > |> database) and the ESE database layer. > | > |Don't know that I'd agree with that since on neither occasion was the > |dblayer specifically referenced .. but it's moot for the moment since > |I'm still mulling over whether my new-found knowledge pertaining to > |link-pairs influences my opinion on where DNTs lie; directory or > |database. > | > | > | > |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.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > > This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you > are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact > me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this > communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that > this communication does not designate an information system for the > purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
