| Author | Messages | |
neilruston
Posts:149
 | | 09/24/2008 1:39 PM |
| Why do you assume DIT size == RAM required and that one equals the
other?
DCs are likely to host various agents and services and event logs may be
configured to grow to ~1Gb too.
RAM is cheap and future changes are unknown => play safe.
:-)
neil
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: 10 September 2008 18:50
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
16GB is a TON of RAM for a 3GB DIT. Are you expecting that much growth?
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com
c - 312.731.3132
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Sabharanjak,
Ravi BGI SF
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:46 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
We'll be shortly going to x64 on our DC's. The DIT is about 3 gb
currently, which should fit nicely in-RAM, with 16 GB on the server. We
would be having 6 disks configured into 3 spindles (mirrors of 2 disks
each), one spindle each for the OS, logs and the DIT file.
What has been the experience of people going to x64 for the DC's? Are
there any major design / configuration changes that you've had to make
because of x64? How about pagefile configuration etc?
Thanks,
-Ravi
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:30 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
You can load the full DIT into RAM on x86 for many many many companies.
It simply depends on the size of the DIT. I expect the vast majority of
users of AD (thinking of all the mom and pops as well as medium and
large, etc) will have their DIT fit into RAM with a normal x86 machine.
Prior to loading Exchange into an AD Forest the DIT for one company I
worked with with a couple of hundred thousand users fit in less than
800MB of RAM on Windows 2000. Exchange is one of the top causes of DIT
bloat, another reason I like Exchange resource forests. 
This really is, I think, more of a push to get people's servers onto x64
so they can drop the x86 support for them and the resulting savings to
MSFT from having to support both. It also allows them to start making
assumptions based on x64 for other server products.
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Michael B.
Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:58 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
Drop support for /3gb, /userva/, and /pae comes to mind.
I know that lots of performance issues in exchange went away by going to
x64, and I know of a couple that go away in AD (loading the full dit
into memory pops to mind).
If css/pss no longer has to take those kinds of calls...it represents a
savings to MSFT and a reduction in problems for the client.
Regards,
Michael B. Smith
MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:43 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
To get people out onto the dance floor....
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Shell
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:37 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
That is how I perceive it working as well... but I am curious what the
value will be.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:08 AM, joe <listmail@joeware.net> wrote:
It can be the same code base, they just don't release the x86 bins...
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Shell
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:03 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
Perhaps I am off base, and yes I clearly see the "server" reference, but
it is my understanding the idea was to keep 2k8 and Vista on the same
base. I wonder what impact , if any, this will have on Vista.
I suppose we should take it to mean that the R2 extensions will only be
available for x64.
p.s. I realize there is a difference between RX and SPX.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Coleman, Hunter <hcoleman@mt.gov>
wrote:
"Microsoft announced several years ago that Windows Server 2008 would be
the last server OS available in 32-bit. (And let's not overlook the word
"server" there! I'm not talking about the desktop.) Windows Server
2008 R2 will be 64-bit only."
(http://blogs.technet.com/windowsserver/archive/2008/09/08/64-bit-window
s-server-hyper-v-and-the-future.aspx)
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Michael B.
Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:37 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
Mark (or anyone else), do you have a reference for this?
(I support it - I just want a reference.) :-)
Regards,
Michael B. Smith
MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com <http://theessentialexchange.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Grillenmeier,
Guido
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:23 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
Yep, they've touted this for a while now. Makes perfect sense.
/Guido
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Mark Parris (L)
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:04 AM
To: ActiveDir
Subject: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
True to their word:
I read yesterday that Windows 2008 R2 will ship as a 64bit version only.
Regards,
Mark Parris
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
--
This message and any attachments are confidential, proprietary, and may
be privileged. If this message was misdirected, Barclays Global
Investors (BGI) does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. If you
are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and destroy
the message without disclosing its contents to anyone. Any
distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it
contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. The views
and opinions expressed in this e-mail message are the author's own and
may not reflect the views and opinions of BGI, unless the author is
authorized by BGI to express such views or opinions on its behalf. All
email sent to or from this address is subject to electronic storage and
review by BGI. Although BGI operates anti-virus programs, it does not
accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever caused by viruses being
passed.
Barclays Wealth is the wealth management division of Barclays Bank PLC. This email may relate to or be sent from other members of the Barclays Group.
The availability of products and services may be limited by the applicable laws and regulations in certain jurisdictions. The Barclays Group does not normally accept or offer business instructions via internet email. Any action that you might take upon this message might be at your own risk.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or its attachments.
Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or without viruses. The Barclays Group does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses. Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays Group for operational or business reasons.
Any opinion or other information in this email or its attachments that does not relate to the business of the Barclays Group is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by the Barclays Group.
Barclays Bank PLC. Registered in England and Wales (registered no. 1026167).
Registered Office: 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP, United Kingdom.
Barclays Bank PLC is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
| | | |
|
|