I added a bit more about Eric's GIGANTIC DIT here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brettsh/archive/2006/06/12/631516.aspx
... feel free to post questions in the responses section ... or here.
Sorry the formatting on the table isn't the best.
Cheers,
BrettSh
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Brett Shirley wrote:
> 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
>
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
