On 04/09/2014 12:31 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 12:00 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Replication storms. In my opinion the replication of a mod of one or
two attribute in a entry will be faster than the bind itself.
Think about the amplification effect in an environment with 20
On 9.4.2014 15:50, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 04/09/2014 12:31 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 12:00 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Replication storms. In my opinion the replication of a mod of one or
two attribute in a entry will be faster than the bind itself.
Think about the
On 04/09/2014 07:57 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 9.4.2014 15:50, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 04/09/2014 12:31 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 12:00 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Replication storms. In my opinion the replication of a mod of one or
two attribute in a entry will be
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 15:50 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Something like this is what we have experienced for real and cause
us to
actually disable replication of all the lockout related attributes
in
the past.
But also here it can get complicated, we cannot really use
failedlogincount
On 04/09/2014 08:09 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 15:50 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Something like this is what we have experienced for real and cause
us to
actually disable replication of all the lockout related attributes
in
the past.
But also here it can get complicated,
On 04/09/2014 04:17 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 04/09/2014 08:09 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 15:50 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Something like this is what we have experienced for real and cause
us to
actually disable replication of all the lockout related attributes
in
I came across these articles that may be of some use in this topic. I
humbly admit that I am no expert on this topic, and these may not be of any
use. Plus, I am not a fan of the product, but maybe it helps?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc772726%28v=ws.10%29.aspx
Looks like there was a great discussion while I was away :-)
There seem to be great concerns (and mybe confusion) about replication
update resoultions, conflicts and amount of meta data stored. I think
it's not as bad as you may think.
Large amounts of metadata can only accumulate for
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 12:00 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Replication storms. In my opinion the replication of a mod of one or
two attribute in a entry will be faster than the bind itself.
Think about the amplification effect in an environment with 20 replicas.
1 login attempt - 20+ replication
Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Hi,
please review the following feature design. It introduces a global
account lockout, while trying to keep the replication traffic minimal.
In my opinion for a real global account lockout the basic lockout
attributes have to be replicated otherwise the benefit is
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 11:26 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Hi,
please review the following feature design. It introduces a global
account lockout, while trying to keep the replication traffic minimal.
In my opinion for a real global account lockout the basic lockout
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:01 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 11:26 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Hi,
please review the following feature design. It introduces a global
account lockout, while trying to keep the replication traffic minimal.
In my
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:10 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:01 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 11:26 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Hi,
please review the following feature design. It introduces a global
account lockout,
On 04/07/2014 10:13 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:10 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:01 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 11:26 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Hi,
please review the following feature design. It introduces a
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 10:22 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 04/07/2014 10:13 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:10 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:01 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 11:26 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 04/07/2014 12:31 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 10:22 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 04/07/2014 10:13 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:10 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:01 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 11:26 -0400, Rob
On 04/07/2014 02:31 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 10:22 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 04/07/2014 10:13 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:10 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:01 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 11:26 -0400, Rob
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 14:47 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 04/07/2014 02:31 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 10:22 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 04/07/2014 10:13 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:10 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:01 -0400, Simo
On 04/07/2014 01:00 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 14:47 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 04/07/2014 02:31 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 10:22 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 04/07/2014 10:13 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:10 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On
Rich Megginson wrote:
On 04/07/2014 01:00 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 14:47 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 04/07/2014 02:31 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 10:22 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 04/07/2014 10:13 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:10
20 matches
Mail list logo
