RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
We did have an OEM relationship with them, but we terminated that relationship several years ago. I don't actually know what happened to them or the product. It was a cool idea, lousy execution, and frankly hardware costs are such that you can rule-of-thumb most AD capacity planning problems and come up with a satisfactory solution. -gil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:53 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Gil et al (not Al :), There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I thought NetPro licensed this and re-packaged as DirectorySim? What happened to that tool? This may answer all/most of my questions :) Did Netpro encompass this in another of their apps? Thanks, neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: 06 December 2004 17:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers See http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/de ployguide/en-us/dssbj_dcc_imef.asp for more MSFT-approved information re: /3gb on DCs. Server Performance Advisor http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9-901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en might provide some insight but it is not predictive. There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I've used the ADTEST programs and scripts from Microsoft to generate repeatable loads and it seems to work well, even if it is a bit of a pain to set up. You didn't say anything about the size of your DIT, but generally, providing enough RAM to cache the entire DIT plus indices is a big win. Several large customers have deployed 64-bit DCs with gobs (1 Gob = 8GB :) of memory to do this and have been quite pleased. -gil Gil Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro To fly, flip away backhanded. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves. Experiment! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == 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
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Hint taken. One of the problems with the NTSim product was that generally AD customers didn't need AD capacity planning, they needed AD deployment, migration, and operations tools. The market has certainly matured since then, but I'm still unconvinced that there is a broad need for AD capacity planning. 2-3 customers does not a successful product make. Unless it's a really _expensive_ product :) -gil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 9:34 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers That *is* it, but the company and it's affiliation with NetPro no longer exist :( [according to out NetPro Account Manager] Shame, there's definitely a gap in the market here... hint hint :) neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Baudino Sent: 07 December 2004 13:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Is this it? Someone here talked to them about a year ago but their licensing wasn't flexible enough for us. http://www.functional-it.com/pdf_documents/NTSIM_SERVER.pdf Ruston, Neil [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers tivedir.org 12/07/2004 05:52 AM Please respond to ActiveDir Gil et al (not Al :), There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I thought NetPro licensed this and re-packaged as DirectorySim? What happened to that tool? This may answer all/most of my questions :) Did Netpro encompass this in another of their apps? Thanks, neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: 06 December 2004 17:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers See http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/de ployguide/en-us/dssbj_dcc_imef.asp for more MSFT-approved information re: /3gb on DCs. Server Performance Advisor http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9-901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en might provide some insight but it is not predictive. There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I've used the ADTEST programs and scripts from Microsoft to generate repeatable loads and it seems to work well, even if it is a bit of a pain to set up. You didn't say anything about the size of your DIT, but generally, providing enough RAM to cache the entire DIT plus indices is a big win. Several large customers have deployed 64-bit DCs with gobs (1 Gob = 8GB :) of memory to do this and have been quite pleased. -gil Gil Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro To fly, flip away backhanded. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves. Experiment! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Thanks to all for the responses. Further info: 1. I have researched the various config changes you all discussed at length - thanks for confirming my findings :) The DC/GC platform will only be used for DC/GC functions - it will not host e2k3 or any other app, so (I believe) the /3gb *is* appropriate and worthwhile. 2. I should have given OS and environmental details: 5Gb DIT; 250,000 objects; w2k3 DC in a native w2k native domain. 3. I have used adperf and adtest in the past but they are IMHO cumbersome at best. SPA I would suggest, is a t.shooting tool. I'm looking for something which can help simulate large client loads (LDAP/Kerb/GAL etc) and which will help me understand where bottlenecks exists in each h/w configuration tested. I guess there is no such 'off the shelf' tool, rather, I shall have to use perfmon and the services of MCS :) Thanks again for the great feedback, neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: 06 December 2004 17:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers See http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/de ployguide/en-us/dssbj_dcc_imef.asp for more MSFT-approved information re: /3gb on DCs. Server Performance Advisor http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9-901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en might provide some insight but it is not predictive. There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I've used the ADTEST programs and scripts from Microsoft to generate repeatable loads and it seems to work well, even if it is a bit of a pain to set up. You didn't say anything about the size of your DIT, but generally, providing enough RAM to cache the entire DIT plus indices is a big win. Several large customers have deployed 64-bit DCs with gobs (1 Gob = 8GB :) of memory to do this and have been quite pleased. -gil Gil Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro To fly, flip away backhanded. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves. Experiment! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == 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
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
This is already happening. I pointed this out some time ago. A very naughty u turn :) neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fleischman Sent: 06 December 2004 21:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Renouf, Phil ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers I'll take care of cleaning up this content issue with the content team. ~Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jorge de Almeida Pinto Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:14 PM To: 'Renouf, Phil '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] ' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Now this is fun: According to MS-KBQ291988 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988) QUOTE: Caution The /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition is only for development and testing purposes. Microsoft does not support using the /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition in a production environment. The /3GB switch can cause some applications to have problems that are related to address dependencies or to a reduction in kernel space. According to MS-KBQ308356 (http://support.microsoft.com/?id=308356) QUOTE: If you plan to use more than 1 GB of physical memory on the domain controller, use Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, or Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition. You can use the /3GB switch in the %SystemDrive%\Boot.ini file on these versions of Windows to provide an additional 1 GB of addressable memory. However, if you use this switch with Windows 2000 Server, this memory space is marked as unavailable. For additional information about memory configuration tuning, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 291988 A description of the 4 GB RAM tuning feature and the Physical Address Extension switch According to W2K3 Deployment Kit - Designing and Deploying Directory and Security Services Chapter 4 Planning Domain Controller Capacity QUOTE: Note The /3GB switch can be added to domain controllers that are running Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition; Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition; and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition. Do not add the /3GB switch to the Boot.ini file if you have less than 2 GB of physical memory. Very nice 2 different statements according to the /3GB switch Does any one know which one is true? Personally I think MS-KBQ291988 is correct because of the date of the article - 15 nov 2004 Regards, Jorge -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/6/2004 6:12 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == 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
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Gil et al (not Al :), There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I thought NetPro licensed this and re-packaged as DirectorySim? What happened to that tool? This may answer all/most of my questions :) Did Netpro encompass this in another of their apps? Thanks, neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: 06 December 2004 17:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers See http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/de ployguide/en-us/dssbj_dcc_imef.asp for more MSFT-approved information re: /3gb on DCs. Server Performance Advisor http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9-901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en might provide some insight but it is not predictive. There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I've used the ADTEST programs and scripts from Microsoft to generate repeatable loads and it seems to work well, even if it is a bit of a pain to set up. You didn't say anything about the size of your DIT, but generally, providing enough RAM to cache the entire DIT plus indices is a big win. Several large customers have deployed 64-bit DCs with gobs (1 Gob = 8GB :) of memory to do this and have been quite pleased. -gil Gil Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro To fly, flip away backhanded. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves. Experiment! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == 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/ == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Is this it? Someone here talked to them about a year ago but their licensing wasn't flexible enough for us. http://www.functional-it.com/pdf_documents/NTSIM_SERVER.pdf Ruston, Neil [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers tivedir.org 12/07/2004 05:52 AM Please respond to ActiveDir Gil et al (not Al :), There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I thought NetPro licensed this and re-packaged as DirectorySim? What happened to that tool? This may answer all/most of my questions :) Did Netpro encompass this in another of their apps? Thanks, neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: 06 December 2004 17:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers See http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/de ployguide/en-us/dssbj_dcc_imef.asp for more MSFT-approved information re: /3gb on DCs. Server Performance Advisor http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9-901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en might provide some insight but it is not predictive. There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I've used the ADTEST programs and scripts from Microsoft to generate repeatable loads and it seems to work well, even if it is a bit of a pain to set up. You didn't say anything about the size of your DIT, but generally, providing enough RAM to cache the entire DIT plus indices is a big win. Several large customers have deployed 64-bit DCs with gobs (1 Gob = 8GB :) of memory to do this and have been quite pleased. -gil Gil Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro To fly, flip away backhanded. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves. Experiment! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Darn near forgot about this one. You might want to have a quick look at the Mindcraft docs to see if they have something you can use. http://www.mindcraft.com/directorymark/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Baudino Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 8:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Is this it? Someone here talked to them about a year ago but their licensing wasn't flexible enough for us. http://www.functional-it.com/pdf_documents/NTSIM_SERVER.pdf Ruston, Neil [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers tivedir.org 12/07/2004 05:52 AM Please respond to ActiveDir Gil et al (not Al :), There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I thought NetPro licensed this and re-packaged as DirectorySim? What happened to that tool? This may answer all/most of my questions :) Did Netpro encompass this in another of their apps? Thanks, neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: 06 December 2004 17:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers See http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/de ployguide/en-us/dssbj_dcc_imef.asp for more MSFT-approved information re: /3gb on DCs. Server Performance Advisor http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9-901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en might provide some insight but it is not predictive. There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I've used the ADTEST programs and scripts from Microsoft to generate repeatable loads and it seems to work well, even if it is a bit of a pain to set up. You didn't say anything about the size of your DIT, but generally, providing enough RAM to cache the entire DIT plus indices is a big win. Several large customers have deployed 64-bit DCs with gobs (1 Gob = 8GB :) of memory to do this and have been quite pleased. -gil Gil Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro To fly, flip away backhanded. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves. Experiment! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
That *is* it, but the company and it's affiliation with NetPro no longer exist :( [according to out NetPro Account Manager] Shame, there's definitely a gap in the market here... hint hint :) neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Baudino Sent: 07 December 2004 13:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Is this it? Someone here talked to them about a year ago but their licensing wasn't flexible enough for us. http://www.functional-it.com/pdf_documents/NTSIM_SERVER.pdf Ruston, Neil [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers tivedir.org 12/07/2004 05:52 AM Please respond to ActiveDir Gil et al (not Al :), There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I thought NetPro licensed this and re-packaged as DirectorySim? What happened to that tool? This may answer all/most of my questions :) Did Netpro encompass this in another of their apps? Thanks, neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: 06 December 2004 17:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers See http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/de ployguide/en-us/dssbj_dcc_imef.asp for more MSFT-approved information re: /3gb on DCs. Server Performance Advisor http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9-901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en might provide some insight but it is not predictive. There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I've used the ADTEST programs and scripts from Microsoft to generate repeatable loads and it seems to work well, even if it is a bit of a pain to set up. You didn't say anything about the size of your DIT, but generally, providing enough RAM to cache the entire DIT plus indices is a big win. Several large customers have deployed 64-bit DCs with gobs (1 Gob = 8GB :) of memory to do this and have been quite pleased. -gil Gil Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro To fly, flip away backhanded. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves. Experiment! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure
Re: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
maybe the Server Performance Advisor? : http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-47b9-901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en or http://tinyurl.com/46wd3 hth, john Ruston, Neil wrote: As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
See http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/de ployguide/en-us/dssbj_dcc_imef.asp for more MSFT-approved information re: /3gb on DCs. Server Performance Advisor http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9-901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en might provide some insight but it is not predictive. There was a company in the UK named NTSim that had a performance-simulation program for AD, but I think they may have gone under. I've used the ADTEST programs and scripts from Microsoft to generate repeatable loads and it seems to work well, even if it is a bit of a pain to set up. You didn't say anything about the size of your DIT, but generally, providing enough RAM to cache the entire DIT plus indices is a big win. Several large customers have deployed 64-bit DCs with gobs (1 Gob = 8GB :) of memory to do this and have been quite pleased. -gil Gil Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro To fly, flip away backhanded. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves. Experiment! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
The OP doesn't mention what OS he is running. If it is 2K AS, AD caching can be better with the /3GB once you hit 600MB of physical RAM and I believe it peaks at 1GB of cached DIT in terms of benefits. K3 32bit changed memory management and the improvements for /3GB come after 2GB of RAM if I recall my conversations about it with ~Eric properly. Of course if your DIT is 200MB, allowing cache to grow to 1GB isn't really necessary, the DIT will probably cache fine in the default space available. joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renouf, Phil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
I think you can get what you want using the below tool in conjunction with http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4814fe3f-92ce-4871- b8a4-99f98b3f4338DisplayLang=en Using the /3gb switch is often recommended, but your biggest benefit will likely come from the disk layout. If you can get both, that's great, but the disk would be the one to really fight for if something has to give. That said, it's rumored that 64bit Windows does a nice job as well. I couldn't speak that however. Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Singler Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers maybe the Server Performance Advisor? : http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-47b9- 901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en or http://tinyurl.com/46wd3 hth, john Ruston, Neil wrote: As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
The /3GB switch isn't about the size of the database, it is used when an application uses the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch. I don't believe that anything running on a DC (not taking into account any 3rd party apps) is using that switch, therefore the /3GB switch shouldn't be needed. You can set the /3GB switch on any server, but the only applications that recognize (and use) that switch are ones marked with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE. Any other applications running on that server will be unaffected and will still only address 2GB of virtual address space. Note that the /3GB switch is referencing virtual address space only. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == == == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == == == 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
LSASS.EXE is built with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch, and is capable of using the additional memory to cache the DIT. excerpt from dumpbin /all of lsass.exe FILE HEADER VALUES 14C machine (x86) 3 number of sections 3E7FFFBA time date stamp Tue Mar 25 00:05:30 2003 0 file pointer to symbol table 0 number of symbols E0 size of optional header 12F characteristics Relocations stripped Executable Line numbers stripped Symbols stripped --- Application can handle large (2GB) addresses 32 bit word machine -gil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renouf, Phil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers The /3GB switch isn't about the size of the database, it is used when an application uses the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch. I don't believe that anything running on a DC (not taking into account any 3rd party apps) is using that switch, therefore the /3GB switch shouldn't be needed. You can set the /3GB switch on any server, but the only applications that recognize (and use) that switch are ones marked with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE. Any other applications running on that server will be unaffected and will still only address 2GB of virtual address space. Note that the /3GB switch is referencing virtual address space only. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == == == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == == == 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Definitely, putting DIT and logs on separate spindles is a no-brainer and guaranteed to improve things. Gil I agree with everything Al has ever said Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers I think you can get what you want using the below tool in conjunction with http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4814fe3f-92ce-4 871- b8a4-99f98b3f4338DisplayLang=en Using the /3gb switch is often recommended, but your biggest benefit will likely come from the disk layout. If you can get both, that's great, but the disk would be the one to really fight for if something has to give. That said, it's rumored that 64bit Windows does a nice job as well. I couldn't speak that however. Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Singler Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers maybe the Server Performance Advisor? : http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9- 901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en or http://tinyurl.com/46wd3 hth, john Ruston, Neil wrote: As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Gotcha, then yeah the /3gb switch would help with performance. I've learned something new, thanks :) The extra memory that it gets from the /3gb switch is still just virtual memory though, it doesn't have any effect on the amount of physical memory that LSASS would have access to. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers LSASS.EXE is built with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch, and is capable of using the additional memory to cache the DIT. excerpt from dumpbin /all of lsass.exe FILE HEADER VALUES 14C machine (x86) 3 number of sections 3E7FFFBA time date stamp Tue Mar 25 00:05:30 2003 0 file pointer to symbol table 0 number of symbols E0 size of optional header 12F characteristics Relocations stripped Executable Line numbers stripped Symbols stripped --- Application can handle large (2GB) addresses 32 bit word machine -gil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renouf, Phil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers The /3GB switch isn't about the size of the database, it is used when an application uses the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch. I don't believe that anything running on a DC (not taking into account any 3rd party apps) is using that switch, therefore the /3GB switch shouldn't be needed. You can set the /3GB switch on any server, but the only applications that recognize (and use) that switch are ones marked with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE. Any other applications running on that server will be unaffected and will still only address 2GB of virtual address space. Note that the /3GB switch is referencing virtual address space only. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == == == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == == == 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
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Gotcha, then yeah the /3gb switch would help with performance. I've learned something new, thanks :) Maybe. It depends on the DIT size as well as what else needs memory. From what I understand based on old conversations, the DIT caching routines are sensitive to memory pressure and will not page DIT cache, it will release memory instead. Again if you have a DIT of 200MB, you can use /3gb and most likely wouldn't see a benefit. Hopefully ~Eric will pop along shortly with some info as I know he loves this stuff. In the meanwhile, you can be pretty sure BrettSh generally knows what he is talking about with AD. Not saying he can't be wrong, but all things being equal concerning a bet on AD internals, I would bet with Brett. Unless he was betting against Will, Dmitri, ~Eric, Dean or some of those guys and then I would simply put my wallet away, pull out some popcorn, and watch the show. joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renouf, Phil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Gotcha, then yeah the /3gb switch would help with performance. I've learned something new, thanks :) The extra memory that it gets from the /3gb switch is still just virtual memory though, it doesn't have any effect on the amount of physical memory that LSASS would have access to. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers LSASS.EXE is built with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch, and is capable of using the additional memory to cache the DIT. excerpt from dumpbin /all of lsass.exe FILE HEADER VALUES 14C machine (x86) 3 number of sections 3E7FFFBA time date stamp Tue Mar 25 00:05:30 2003 0 file pointer to symbol table 0 number of symbols E0 size of optional header 12F characteristics Relocations stripped Executable Line numbers stripped Symbols stripped --- Application can handle large (2GB) addresses 32 bit word machine -gil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renouf, Phil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers The /3GB switch isn't about the size of the database, it is used when an application uses the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch. I don't believe that anything running on a DC (not taking into account any 3rd party apps) is using that switch, therefore the /3GB switch shouldn't be needed. You can set the /3GB switch on any server, but the only applications that recognize (and use) that switch are ones marked with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE. Any other applications running on that server will be unaffected and will still only address 2GB of virtual address space. Note that the /3GB switch is referencing virtual address space only. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Really? Z:\ntds\dbdir ... 05/20/2004 07:47 AM 7,899,987,968 ntds.dit ... Cheers, -BrettSh On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Renouf, Phil wrote: You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Gotcha, then yeah the /3gb switch would help with performance. I've learned something new, thanks :) Maybe. It depends on the DIT size as well as what else needs memory. From what I understand based on old conversations, the DIT caching routines are sensitive to memory pressure and will not page DIT cache, it will release memory instead. Again if you have a DIT of 200MB, you can use /3gb and most likely wouldn't see a benefit. You might not see a benefit with a small DIT size, but then again why go with such a beefed up DC if your DIT size is that small (unless you are planning for it to grow substantially). Adding the /3GB switch shouldn't cause any issues even if the DIT is small enough to not get much benefit from it, unless the OS is effected by being reduced to 1GB of virtual address space. Hopefully ~Eric will pop along shortly with some info as I know he loves this stuff. In the meanwhile, you can be pretty sure BrettSh generally knows what he is talking about with AD. Not saying he can't be wrong, but all things being equal concerning a bet on AD internals, I would bet with Brett. Unless he was betting against Will, Dmitri, ~Eric, Dean or some of those guys and then I would simply put my wallet away, pull out some popcorn, and watch the show. I'm definitely interested to see what they have to say :) I certainly wasn't implying Brett didn't know what he was talking about, but showing me the size of a DIT really didn't tell me much without the information that LSASS is large address aware. Now it makes sense ;) Anyway, looking forward to some more information on this and its effect on performance. Phil 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Brett is fun. :o) He isn't so much the type that will fish for you or even teach you to fish, he will throw you a fishing line and let you figure it all out. This can be troublesome though if you lived in a desert and had never even seen water let alone a fish. Understanding Tech involved with the AD code specifically, he is very strong. Understanding Tech as it has to be used in some sites and locations and operational support concerns, not always so strong. He is very much like the rest of the Dev team guys which is mostly working in the Dev this is what you should shoot for world versus the ditches and puddles that many people end up having to work in. Overall a good guy though. Extremely entertaining guy to talk to. On the beefy DC side of things. I don't know, I don't really consider 2GB to be exceptionally beefy or even 4GB. Not when we have workstations now coming from the factory with 1GB and 2GB and options to do 4GB. Exceeding 4GB RAM gets a little unusual and you truly get beefy based on proc Architectures (say multiproc opteron versus athlon or on the intel side the Xeon versus the non-Xeon's, etc) and disk subsystems with heavy duty hardware RAID solutions with oodles of cache and RAID type offerings. We need to go to 64 bit for no better reason than the cost of memory is consistently dropping and we need good easy ways of dealing with more than 4GB of RAM that doesn't depend on goofy paging mechanisms. Finally, I don't recommend /3gb unless you truly need it and all of the software on the machine properly supports it. It has been long while (years) but I have seen some odd /3GB failures with apps that didn't properly implement that functionality due to memory addressing issues. Also obviously you can't use /3GB with 2K standard, that could cause some fun things to happen as well, collectively termed as undefined results. No reason to force the kernel to live in 1GB unless it is required for some other reason which if I recall can impact some video drivers and other kernel apps that may need to grab a chunk of address space for some reason. joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renouf, Phil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Gotcha, then yeah the /3gb switch would help with performance. I've learned something new, thanks :) Maybe. It depends on the DIT size as well as what else needs memory. From what I understand based on old conversations, the DIT caching routines are sensitive to memory pressure and will not page DIT cache, it will release memory instead. Again if you have a DIT of 200MB, you can use /3gb and most likely wouldn't see a benefit. You might not see a benefit with a small DIT size, but then again why go with such a beefed up DC if your DIT size is that small (unless you are planning for it to grow substantially). Adding the /3GB switch shouldn't cause any issues even if the DIT is small enough to not get much benefit from it, unless the OS is effected by being reduced to 1GB of virtual address space. Hopefully ~Eric will pop along shortly with some info as I know he loves this stuff. In the meanwhile, you can be pretty sure BrettSh generally knows what he is talking about with AD. Not saying he can't be wrong, but all things being equal concerning a bet on AD internals, I would bet with Brett. Unless he was betting against Will, Dmitri, ~Eric, Dean or some of those guys and then I would simply put my wallet away, pull out some popcorn, and watch the show. I'm definitely interested to see what they have to say :) I certainly wasn't implying Brett didn't know what he was talking about, but showing me the size of a DIT really didn't tell me much without the information that LSASS is large address aware. Now it makes sense ;) Anyway, looking forward to some more information on this and its effect on performance. Phil 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Wouldn't this be dependent on the volume of changes that you see in your environment? With Exchange and its accompanying volume of changes, moving the log files to separate spindles is as you say, a no no-brainer. However in our AD environment, we see very low volume of changes. We get maybe 50 MB of log files a day at most.. Our server design for our Win2K AD deployment was to design a DC like an Exchange server with oddles of disks and separate spindle sets for the OS, DB and logs but we found that this layout was a major overkill. For our Win2K3 upgrades to our domain controllers, we are using less dsiks and combining the OS and log spindles. We are still beefing up the memory and processors which in our environment seem to be the most critical components. Our DIT is ~1 GB. Diane -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Definitely, putting DIT and logs on separate spindles is a no-brainer and guaranteed to improve things. Gil I agree with everything Al has ever said Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers I think you can get what you want using the below tool in conjunction with http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4814fe3f-92ce-4 871- b8a4-99f98b3f4338DisplayLang=en Using the /3gb switch is often recommended, but your biggest benefit will likely come from the disk layout. If you can get both, that's great, but the disk would be the one to really fight for if something has to give. That said, it's rumored that 64bit Windows does a nice job as well. I couldn't speak that however. Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Singler Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers maybe the Server Performance Advisor? : http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9- 901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en or http://tinyurl.com/46wd3 hth, john Ruston, Neil wrote: As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Fair comment, although in the two largeish environments I'm familiar with where the customers moved to separate spindles, the observed throughput was improved substantially. Perhaps they had more update traffic than you do? -gil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ayers, Diane Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Wouldn't this be dependent on the volume of changes that you see in your environment? With Exchange and its accompanying volume of changes, moving the log files to separate spindles is as you say, a no no-brainer. However in our AD environment, we see very low volume of changes. We get maybe 50 MB of log files a day at most.. Our server design for our Win2K AD deployment was to design a DC like an Exchange server with oddles of disks and separate spindle sets for the OS, DB and logs but we found that this layout was a major overkill. For our Win2K3 upgrades to our domain controllers, we are using less dsiks and combining the OS and log spindles. We are still beefing up the memory and processors which in our environment seem to be the most critical components. Our DIT is ~1 GB. Diane -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Definitely, putting DIT and logs on separate spindles is a no-brainer and guaranteed to improve things. Gil I agree with everything Al has ever said Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers I think you can get what you want using the below tool in conjunction with http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4814fe3f-92ce-4 871- b8a4-99f98b3f4338DisplayLang=en Using the /3gb switch is often recommended, but your biggest benefit will likely come from the disk layout. If you can get both, that's great, but the disk would be the one to really fight for if something has to give. That said, it's rumored that 64bit Windows does a nice job as well. I couldn't speak that however. Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Singler Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers maybe the Server Performance Advisor? : http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9- 901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en or http://tinyurl.com/46wd3 hth, john Ruston, Neil wrote: As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Depends on your environment. Since he's trying to beef them up already, then I don't think it's overkill to separate disk I/O streams. In less change prone environments, I might settle for moving the log files only, and then add enough memory to make it interesting, but there're a lot of factors to consider. For example, since this is expected to be a highly-available piece of infrastructure (remember that identity, authentication, and authorization all rely on it being there when you need and speed is affected by it) I would have to say that I should design for the high-water mark. I DO NOT want to be caught with a machine that cannot handle the load if I have a lot of DC's and a slow network. The idea being that I put that DC there for a purpose. Often it's cheap to build it in a decent manner. HDD's are relatively cheap as are server class machines that can handle the extra disks. As an example, a DL380 from HPQ makes a nice DC in many environments. If I have a multiple domain architecture however, I may have to rethink this for the servers hosting GC functionality. If I have anti-virus and HID services running, I may have to take those into account as well. Management overhead, etc. also plays a role in the sizing decision. The list goes on and is why there are consultants out there, right Joe ;) -Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ayers, Diane Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 2:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Wouldn't this be dependent on the volume of changes that you see in your environment? With Exchange and its accompanying volume of changes, moving the log files to separate spindles is as you say, a no no-brainer. However in our AD environment, we see very low volume of changes. We get maybe 50 MB of log files a day at most.. Our server design for our Win2K AD deployment was to design a DC like an Exchange server with oddles of disks and separate spindle sets for the OS, DB and logs but we found that this layout was a major overkill. For our Win2K3 upgrades to our domain controllers, we are using less dsiks and combining the OS and log spindles. We are still beefing up the memory and processors which in our environment seem to be the most critical components. Our DIT is ~1 GB. Diane -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Definitely, putting DIT and logs on separate spindles is a no-brainer and guaranteed to improve things. Gil I agree with everything Al has ever said Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers I think you can get what you want using the below tool in conjunction with http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4814fe3f-92ce-4 871- b8a4-99f98b3f4338DisplayLang=en Using the /3gb switch is often recommended, but your biggest benefit will likely come from the disk layout. If you can get both, that's great, but the disk would be the one to really fight for if something has to give. That said, it's rumored that 64bit Windows does a nice job as well. I couldn't speak that however. Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Singler Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers maybe the Server Performance Advisor? : http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9- 901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en or http://tinyurl.com/46wd3 hth, john Ruston, Neil wrote: As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
The list goes on and is why there are consultants out there, right Joe ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Depends on your environment. Since he's trying to beef them up already, then I don't think it's overkill to separate disk I/O streams. In less change prone environments, I might settle for moving the log files only, and then add enough memory to make it interesting, but there're a lot of factors to consider. For example, since this is expected to be a highly-available piece of infrastructure (remember that identity, authentication, and authorization all rely on it being there when you need and speed is affected by it) I would have to say that I should design for the high-water mark. I DO NOT want to be caught with a machine that cannot handle the load if I have a lot of DC's and a slow network. The idea being that I put that DC there for a purpose. Often it's cheap to build it in a decent manner. HDD's are relatively cheap as are server class machines that can handle the extra disks. As an example, a DL380 from HPQ makes a nice DC in many environments. If I have a multiple domain architecture however, I may have to rethink this for the servers hosting GC functionality. If I have anti-virus and HID services running, I may have to take those into account as well. Management overhead, etc. also plays a role in the sizing decision. The list goes on and is why there are consultants out there, right Joe ;) -Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ayers, Diane Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 2:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Wouldn't this be dependent on the volume of changes that you see in your environment? With Exchange and its accompanying volume of changes, moving the log files to separate spindles is as you say, a no no-brainer. However in our AD environment, we see very low volume of changes. We get maybe 50 MB of log files a day at most.. Our server design for our Win2K AD deployment was to design a DC like an Exchange server with oddles of disks and separate spindle sets for the OS, DB and logs but we found that this layout was a major overkill. For our Win2K3 upgrades to our domain controllers, we are using less dsiks and combining the OS and log spindles. We are still beefing up the memory and processors which in our environment seem to be the most critical components. Our DIT is ~1 GB. Diane -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Definitely, putting DIT and logs on separate spindles is a no-brainer and guaranteed to improve things. Gil I agree with everything Al has ever said Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers I think you can get what you want using the below tool in conjunction with http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4814fe3f-92ce-4 871- b8a4-99f98b3f4338DisplayLang=en Using the /3gb switch is often recommended, but your biggest benefit will likely come from the disk layout. If you can get both, that's great, but the disk would be the one to really fight for if something has to give. That said, it's rumored that 64bit Windows does a nice job as well. I couldn't speak that however. Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Singler Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers maybe the Server Performance Advisor? : http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9- 901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en or http://tinyurl.com/46wd3 hth, john Ruston, Neil wrote: As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
The list goes on and is why there are consultants out there, right Joe ;) Absolutely. Heck most of the questions on this list all get stamped with the initial response of it depends. AD is a very variable type of thing. :o) As a general rule, when someone is building something though, I tell them to build as big as they can get away with. It is the rare case that you don't use all of it and more as companies tend to want whatever they have doing more and more and more. Much easier to get money up front than beg for it later when you didn't ask for enough. joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Depends on your environment. Since he's trying to beef them up already, then I don't think it's overkill to separate disk I/O streams. In less change prone environments, I might settle for moving the log files only, and then add enough memory to make it interesting, but there're a lot of factors to consider. For example, since this is expected to be a highly-available piece of infrastructure (remember that identity, authentication, and authorization all rely on it being there when you need and speed is affected by it) I would have to say that I should design for the high-water mark. I DO NOT want to be caught with a machine that cannot handle the load if I have a lot of DC's and a slow network. The idea being that I put that DC there for a purpose. Often it's cheap to build it in a decent manner. HDD's are relatively cheap as are server class machines that can handle the extra disks. As an example, a DL380 from HPQ makes a nice DC in many environments. If I have a multiple domain architecture however, I may have to rethink this for the servers hosting GC functionality. If I have anti-virus and HID services running, I may have to take those into account as well. Management overhead, etc. also plays a role in the sizing decision. The list goes on and is why there are consultants out there, right Joe ;) -Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ayers, Diane Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 2:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Wouldn't this be dependent on the volume of changes that you see in your environment? With Exchange and its accompanying volume of changes, moving the log files to separate spindles is as you say, a no no-brainer. However in our AD environment, we see very low volume of changes. We get maybe 50 MB of log files a day at most.. Our server design for our Win2K AD deployment was to design a DC like an Exchange server with oddles of disks and separate spindle sets for the OS, DB and logs but we found that this layout was a major overkill. For our Win2K3 upgrades to our domain controllers, we are using less dsiks and combining the OS and log spindles. We are still beefing up the memory and processors which in our environment seem to be the most critical components. Our DIT is ~1 GB. Diane -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil Kirkpatrick Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Definitely, putting DIT and logs on separate spindles is a no-brainer and guaranteed to improve things. Gil I agree with everything Al has ever said Kirkpatrick CTO, NetPro -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers I think you can get what you want using the below tool in conjunction with http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4814fe3f-92ce-4 871- b8a4-99f98b3f4338DisplayLang=en Using the /3gb switch is often recommended, but your biggest benefit will likely come from the disk layout. If you can get both, that's great, but the disk would be the one to really fight for if something has to give. That said, it's rumored that 64bit Windows does a nice job as well. I couldn't speak that however. Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Singler Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers maybe the Server Performance Advisor? : http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=61a41d78-e4aa-4 7b9- 901b-cf85da075a73displaylang=en or http://tinyurl.com/46wd3 hth, john Ruston, Neil wrote: As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Title: Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers I read an article about using an Itanium server with 12 GB of memory, enough to hold the DIT entirely in memory. The LDAP performance went up by a factor of five compared to a similarly sized 32 bit machine, if I remember correctly. If performance really is an issue then this may help you out. Perhaps Guido or another HP guy cares to comment on this, since they build those boxes? -- Regards, Willem From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:57 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: Use 4Gb RAM Use /3gb switch Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. ==
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Tremendous amt of churn on this thread. Let me see if I can pull it all together. One of the things we do internally on the ESE level is caching of pages of the DIT from disk. The perf benefit is clear, and measurable. In 2003 on 32bit hardware, the /3gb switch begins to make sense when your dit is in the neighborhood of 2gb and you have 2GB of physical memory. At that point we might hit the max cache size, and to grow beyond that /3gb will help. Max cache size is in the neighborhood of 2.6 or 2.7gb when /3gb is used. On 64bit, our max cache size is 2^48bytes if memory serves me correctly. If you have that much ram on a 64bit box, call me. I want to see your box. :) I should note that /3gb does not come w/o a cost. I would be careful in using this setting this value on machines which are not just DCs, as it does have a perf impact on your system more generally. Without going too far off topic, I'll say it will yield a scenario where you have fewer resources for kernel data structures, like non-paged pool and system PTEs. If you are interested in the details, this is a question best fielded by a book like Inside Windows 2000 I'd think. There was discussion around the amt of benefit (I think someone tossed out a phrase like a factor of 5). The reality is that the benefit depends greatly upon your workload. If you have a workload which can be optimized through server-side indexes, to accurately measure the benefit of 64bit you probably want to compare a 32bit box with heavy indexes, custom tailored to your environment, vs. 64bit with either comparable or no indexes (your choice) and a _warm_ cache. I say it in this way as really, you want to compare max perf you can get on 32bit with max you can get on 64bit. That might mean enabling some indexes, as that can help with perf even w/o loading everything in memory (probably intuitive, but wanted to draw special attention to it). Note my usage of the word warm to describe the cache. I say warm cache as out of the box, we won't preload your DIT in to memory, even if you have the physical memory for it (32bit or 64bit). Rather, we cache things as they are fetched. So if you issue a query which need traverse a series of pages not yet cached, we still take the same I/O hit. It is when they are in memory and you try to use them a second time that you get the benefit, as we don't need to fetch them again. This yields the fact that some customers that run 64bit write a little script to walk their database. They do this to warm the cache and get most everything preloaded in to memory. There was also discussion around how large the cache is. In essence, like most software which caches stuff, we have algorithms for it. :) Joe eluded to it, but basically we have a series of elements we look at to help decide what movements in cache size should be done. I won't go in to the details of such things for the sake of brevity. Hope that helps. ~Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Brett is fun. :o) He isn't so much the type that will fish for you or even teach you to fish, he will throw you a fishing line and let you figure it all out. This can be troublesome though if you lived in a desert and had never even seen water let alone a fish. Understanding Tech involved with the AD code specifically, he is very strong. Understanding Tech as it has to be used in some sites and locations and operational support concerns, not always so strong. He is very much like the rest of the Dev team guys which is mostly working in the Dev this is what you should shoot for world versus the ditches and puddles that many people end up having to work in. Overall a good guy though. Extremely entertaining guy to talk to. On the beefy DC side of things. I don't know, I don't really consider 2GB to be exceptionally beefy or even 4GB. Not when we have workstations now coming from the factory with 1GB and 2GB and options to do 4GB. Exceeding 4GB RAM gets a little unusual and you truly get beefy based on proc Architectures (say multiproc opteron versus athlon or on the intel side the Xeon versus the non-Xeon's, etc) and disk subsystems with heavy duty hardware RAID solutions with oodles of cache and RAID type offerings. We need to go to 64 bit for no better reason than the cost of memory is consistently dropping and we need good easy ways of dealing with more than 4GB of RAM that doesn't depend on goofy paging mechanisms. Finally, I don't recommend /3gb unless you truly need it and all of the software on the machine properly supports it. It has been long while (years) but I have seen some odd /3GB failures with apps that didn't properly implement that functionality due to memory addressing issues. Also obviously you can't use /3GB with 2K standard, that could cause some fun things
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Now this is fun: According to MS-KBQ291988 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988) QUOTE: Caution The /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition is only for development and testing purposes. Microsoft does not support using the /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition in a production environment. The /3GB switch can cause some applications to have problems that are related to address dependencies or to a reduction in kernel space. According to MS-KBQ308356 (http://support.microsoft.com/?id=308356) QUOTE: If you plan to use more than 1 GB of physical memory on the domain controller, use Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, or Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition. You can use the /3GB switch in the %SystemDrive%\Boot.ini file on these versions of Windows to provide an additional 1 GB of addressable memory. However, if you use this switch with Windows 2000 Server, this memory space is marked as unavailable. For additional information about memory configuration tuning, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 291988 A description of the 4 GB RAM tuning feature and the Physical Address Extension switch According to W2K3 Deployment Kit - Designing and Deploying Directory and Security Services Chapter 4 Planning Domain Controller Capacity QUOTE: Note The /3GB switch can be added to domain controllers that are running Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition; Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition; and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition. Do not add the /3GB switch to the Boot.ini file if you have less than 2 GB of physical memory. Very nice 2 different statements according to the /3GB switch Does any one know which one is true? Personally I think MS-KBQ291988 is correct because of the date of the article - 15 nov 2004 Regards, Jorge -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/6/2004 6:12 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == 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/
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
I'll take care of cleaning up this content issue with the content team. ~Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jorge de Almeida Pinto Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:14 PM To: 'Renouf, Phil '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] ' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Now this is fun: According to MS-KBQ291988 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988) QUOTE: Caution The /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition is only for development and testing purposes. Microsoft does not support using the /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition in a production environment. The /3GB switch can cause some applications to have problems that are related to address dependencies or to a reduction in kernel space. According to MS-KBQ308356 (http://support.microsoft.com/?id=308356) QUOTE: If you plan to use more than 1 GB of physical memory on the domain controller, use Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, or Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition. You can use the /3GB switch in the %SystemDrive%\Boot.ini file on these versions of Windows to provide an additional 1 GB of addressable memory. However, if you use this switch with Windows 2000 Server, this memory space is marked as unavailable. For additional information about memory configuration tuning, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 291988 A description of the 4 GB RAM tuning feature and the Physical Address Extension switch According to W2K3 Deployment Kit - Designing and Deploying Directory and Security Services Chapter 4 Planning Domain Controller Capacity QUOTE: Note The /3GB switch can be added to domain controllers that are running Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition; Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition; and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition. Do not add the /3GB switch to the Boot.ini file if you have less than 2 GB of physical memory. Very nice 2 different statements according to the /3GB switch Does any one know which one is true? Personally I think MS-KBQ291988 is correct because of the date of the article - 15 nov 2004 Regards, Jorge -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/6/2004 6:12 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil Ruston - MVP Directory Services == This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. == 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
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Unless memory is not serving me well (pardon the bad pun), the switch doesn't actually do that much. In normal operating mode, the virtual address space of, let's say, a 4 GB machine is split up in 2 blocks, both 2 GB large. When using the 3GB switch, the virtual address space that is used for user mode is expanded to 3GB, while the virtual address space for the kernel is sized to 1 GB. That, I believe, is all there is to it. I believe Linux does the same by default. However! I believe that the applications using this space must have some little funky bit set to properly use the space allocated.. that might explain the apprehension from the MS side to support this.. after all, that'd make them dependant on 3rd party software parties to incorporate this feature. I might be wrong, it's been a while since I actually looked into any interesting programming stuff, let alone stuff that'd use this kind of address space. :) Of course, running SQL/Exchange/Oracle/etc/etc with a large load might make it interesting to flip this switch. I even recall seeing this setting recommended for an MS product, though I can't recall for the life of me which app that was.. I can see the more recent article making more sense in this aspect, especially regarding the kernel space reduction in higher loads. Regards, Paul. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jorge de Almeida Pinto Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:14 PM To: 'Renouf, Phil '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] ' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Now this is fun: According to MS-KBQ291988 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988) QUOTE: Caution The /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition is only for development and testing purposes. Microsoft does not support using the /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition in a production environment. The /3GB switch can cause some applications to have problems that are related to address dependencies or to a reduction in kernel space. According to MS-KBQ308356 (http://support.microsoft.com/?id=308356) QUOTE: If you plan to use more than 1 GB of physical memory on the domain controller, use Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, or Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition. You can use the /3GB switch in the %SystemDrive%\Boot.ini file on these versions of Windows to provide an additional 1 GB of addressable memory. However, if you use this switch with Windows 2000 Server, this memory space is marked as unavailable. For additional information about memory configuration tuning, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 291988 A description of the 4 GB RAM tuning feature and the Physical Address Extension switch According to W2K3 Deployment Kit - Designing and Deploying Directory and Security Services Chapter 4 Planning Domain Controller Capacity QUOTE: Note The /3GB switch can be added to domain controllers that are running Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition; Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition; and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition. Do not add the /3GB switch to the Boot.ini file if you have less than 2 GB of physical memory. Very nice 2 different statements according to the /3GB switch Does any one know which one is true? Personally I think MS-KBQ291988 is correct because of the date of the article - 15 nov 2004 Regards, Jorge -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/6/2004 6:12 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers You don't need the /3GB switch for a DC. Just having more than 2GB of ram does not require using the /3GB switch, systems like Exchange require it, but a DC shouldn't need it. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers As part of a more general AD design refresh, I am re-visiting the DC hardware and OS configuration. I am proposing several changes to the DC spec, including the adoption of the following: * Use 4Gb RAM * Use /3gb switch * Place AD logs and database on separate disk spindles In order to 'sell' this idea, I would like to demonstrate the effective increase in 'horse power' that the above offers. I am therefore looking for a tool which can help me to show that a DC with config A can handle load x whilst DC spec B can handle load y. Ideally, this tool will act much like loadsim and simulate a load on the DC so as to identify the maximum load that each config is capable of handling. Is there such a tool available on the market? Thanks in advance, Neil Neil
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
Hmmm, forget brevity.. I'd love to know more about this.. :) Perhaps you can point me to a place where I can find more information on this ? Thanks in advance, Paul. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fleischman Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers SNIP There was also discussion around how large the cache is. In essence, like most software which caches stuff, we have algorithms for it. :) Joe eluded to it, but basically we have a series of elements we look at to help decide what movements in cache size should be done. I won't go in to the details of such things for the sake of brevity. Hope that helps. ~Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Brett is fun. :o) He isn't so much the type that will fish for you or even teach you to fish, he will throw you a fishing line and let you figure it all out. This can be troublesome though if you lived in a desert and had never even seen water let alone a fish. Understanding Tech involved with the AD code specifically, he is very strong. Understanding Tech as it has to be used in some sites and locations and operational support concerns, not always so strong. He is very much like the rest of the Dev team guys which is mostly working in the Dev this is what you should shoot for world versus the ditches and puddles that many people end up having to work in. Overall a good guy though. Extremely entertaining guy to talk to. On the beefy DC side of things. I don't know, I don't really consider 2GB to be exceptionally beefy or even 4GB. Not when we have workstations now coming from the factory with 1GB and 2GB and options to do 4GB. Exceeding 4GB RAM gets a little unusual and you truly get beefy based on proc Architectures (say multiproc opteron versus athlon or on the intel side the Xeon versus the non-Xeon's, etc) and disk subsystems with heavy duty hardware RAID solutions with oodles of cache and RAID type offerings. We need to go to 64 bit for no better reason than the cost of memory is consistently dropping and we need good easy ways of dealing with more than 4GB of RAM that doesn't depend on goofy paging mechanisms. Finally, I don't recommend /3gb unless you truly need it and all of the software on the machine properly supports it. It has been long while (years) but I have seen some odd /3GB failures with apps that didn't properly implement that functionality due to memory addressing issues. Also obviously you can't use /3GB with 2K standard, that could cause some fun things to happen as well, collectively termed as undefined results. No reason to force the kernel to live in 1GB unless it is required for some other reason which if I recall can impact some video drivers and other kernel apps that may need to grab a chunk of address space for some reason. joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renouf, Phil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Gotcha, then yeah the /3gb switch would help with performance. I've learned something new, thanks :) Maybe. It depends on the DIT size as well as what else needs memory. From what I understand based on old conversations, the DIT caching routines are sensitive to memory pressure and will not page DIT cache, it will release memory instead. Again if you have a DIT of 200MB, you can use /3gb and most likely wouldn't see a benefit. You might not see a benefit with a small DIT size, but then again why go with such a beefed up DC if your DIT size is that small (unless you are planning for it to grow substantially). Adding the /3GB switch shouldn't cause any issues even if the DIT is small enough to not get much benefit from it, unless the OS is effected by being reduced to 1GB of virtual address space. Hopefully ~Eric will pop along shortly with some info as I know he loves this stuff. In the meanwhile, you can be pretty sure BrettSh generally knows what he is talking about with AD. Not saying he can't be wrong, but all things being equal concerning a bet on AD internals, I would bet with Brett. Unless he was betting against Will, Dmitri, ~Eric, Dean or some of those guys and then I would simply put my wallet away, pull out some popcorn, and watch the show. I'm definitely interested to see what they have to say :) I certainly wasn't implying Brett didn't know what he was talking about, but showing me the size of a DIT really didn't tell me much without the information that LSASS is large address aware. Now it makes sense ;) Anyway, looking
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
I recall a KB in the 2k days that had some of the rough information on how this works, but I never saw anything more detailed in that, nor have I seen it updated for 2003. Sorry. :( Perhaps someone can point you to something else which is detailed, I don't know. ~Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul van Geldrop Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 4:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Hmmm, forget brevity.. I'd love to know more about this.. :) Perhaps you can point me to a place where I can find more information on this ? Thanks in advance, Paul. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fleischman Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers SNIP There was also discussion around how large the cache is. In essence, like most software which caches stuff, we have algorithms for it. :) Joe eluded to it, but basically we have a series of elements we look at to help decide what movements in cache size should be done. I won't go in to the details of such things for the sake of brevity. Hope that helps. ~Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Brett is fun. :o) He isn't so much the type that will fish for you or even teach you to fish, he will throw you a fishing line and let you figure it all out. This can be troublesome though if you lived in a desert and had never even seen water let alone a fish. Understanding Tech involved with the AD code specifically, he is very strong. Understanding Tech as it has to be used in some sites and locations and operational support concerns, not always so strong. He is very much like the rest of the Dev team guys which is mostly working in the Dev this is what you should shoot for world versus the ditches and puddles that many people end up having to work in. Overall a good guy though. Extremely entertaining guy to talk to. On the beefy DC side of things. I don't know, I don't really consider 2GB to be exceptionally beefy or even 4GB. Not when we have workstations now coming from the factory with 1GB and 2GB and options to do 4GB. Exceeding 4GB RAM gets a little unusual and you truly get beefy based on proc Architectures (say multiproc opteron versus athlon or on the intel side the Xeon versus the non-Xeon's, etc) and disk subsystems with heavy duty hardware RAID solutions with oodles of cache and RAID type offerings. We need to go to 64 bit for no better reason than the cost of memory is consistently dropping and we need good easy ways of dealing with more than 4GB of RAM that doesn't depend on goofy paging mechanisms. Finally, I don't recommend /3gb unless you truly need it and all of the software on the machine properly supports it. It has been long while (years) but I have seen some odd /3GB failures with apps that didn't properly implement that functionality due to memory addressing issues. Also obviously you can't use /3GB with 2K standard, that could cause some fun things to happen as well, collectively termed as undefined results. No reason to force the kernel to live in 1GB unless it is required for some other reason which if I recall can impact some video drivers and other kernel apps that may need to grab a chunk of address space for some reason. joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renouf, Phil Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Gotcha, then yeah the /3gb switch would help with performance. I've learned something new, thanks :) Maybe. It depends on the DIT size as well as what else needs memory. From what I understand based on old conversations, the DIT caching routines are sensitive to memory pressure and will not page DIT cache, it will release memory instead. Again if you have a DIT of 200MB, you can use /3gb and most likely wouldn't see a benefit. You might not see a benefit with a small DIT size, but then again why go with such a beefed up DC if your DIT size is that small (unless you are planning for it to grow substantially). Adding the /3GB switch shouldn't cause any issues even if the DIT is small enough to not get much benefit from it, unless the OS is effected by being reduced to 1GB of virtual address space. Hopefully ~Eric will pop along shortly with some info as I know he loves this stuff. In the meanwhile, you can be pretty sure BrettSh generally knows what he is talking about with AD. Not saying he can't be wrong, but all things
RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers
/3GB is very popular on servers in enterprise spaces such as large Exchange servers and large SQL Servers and Domain Controllers. It is a combination of a bit flip in the PE info of the image and the app properly using the additional 1GB of space allocated to it. As I alluded to previously there have been apps that have flipped that switch but because they were using certain forms of addressing (various relative addressing formats) they had very odd app blowups. Also as mentioned by ~Eric and myself, you can see issues with kernel space being reduced to 1GB causing issues as well. ~Eric made great points that I forgot that specifically you could suffer around free PTE's and non-paged pool. Free PTE's is a specifically mentioned issue when doing this with Exchange servers and you are generally recommended to look at increasing the number of systempages via registry modification (though this decreases paged pool memory by whatever amount you increase the size of the PTE Pool which can also impact perf). joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul van Geldrop Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Unless memory is not serving me well (pardon the bad pun), the switch doesn't actually do that much. In normal operating mode, the virtual address space of, let's say, a 4 GB machine is split up in 2 blocks, both 2 GB large. When using the 3GB switch, the virtual address space that is used for user mode is expanded to 3GB, while the virtual address space for the kernel is sized to 1 GB. That, I believe, is all there is to it. I believe Linux does the same by default. However! I believe that the applications using this space must have some little funky bit set to properly use the space allocated.. that might explain the apprehension from the MS side to support this.. after all, that'd make them dependant on 3rd party software parties to incorporate this feature. I might be wrong, it's been a while since I actually looked into any interesting programming stuff, let alone stuff that'd use this kind of address space. :) Of course, running SQL/Exchange/Oracle/etc/etc with a large load might make it interesting to flip this switch. I even recall seeing this setting recommended for an MS product, though I can't recall for the life of me which app that was.. I can see the more recent article making more sense in this aspect, especially regarding the kernel space reduction in higher loads. Regards, Paul. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jorge de Almeida Pinto Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:14 PM To: 'Renouf, Phil '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] ' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress testing and performance analysis of domain controllers Now this is fun: According to MS-KBQ291988 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988) QUOTE: Caution The /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition is only for development and testing purposes. Microsoft does not support using the /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition in a production environment. The /3GB switch can cause some applications to have problems that are related to address dependencies or to a reduction in kernel space. According to MS-KBQ308356 (http://support.microsoft.com/?id=308356) QUOTE: If you plan to use more than 1 GB of physical memory on the domain controller, use Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, or Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition. You can use the /3GB switch in the %SystemDrive%\Boot.ini file on these versions of Windows to provide an additional 1 GB of addressable memory. However, if you use this switch with Windows 2000 Server, this memory space is marked as unavailable. For additional information about memory configuration tuning, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 291988 A description of the 4 GB RAM tuning feature and the Physical Address Extension switch According to W2K3 Deployment Kit - Designing and Deploying Directory and Security Services Chapter 4 Planning Domain Controller Capacity QUOTE: Note The /3GB switch can be added to domain controllers that are running Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition; Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition; and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition. Do not add the /3GB switch to the Boot.ini file if you have less than 2 GB of physical memory. Very nice 2 different statements according to the /3GB switch Does any one know which one is true? Personally I think MS-KBQ291988 is correct because of the date of the article - 15 nov 2004 Regards, Jorge -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/6/2004 6:12 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Stress
