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\db>dir ... 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/ 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/
