Well, my friend, you could always break out a copy of RegMon from Sysinternals and build a dozen or so representative scopes out on a lab box. That should give you the per scope cost info you're after.
>From there, it seems like the number you really want is the maximum registry size for a Win2k3 implementation. Personally, I never got the 80/20 split jazz. I always do 50/50 (or 100% on one server in my current config, but that's a whole other story - redundancy isn't terribly important for DHCP with the boxes I manage). -------- Roger Seielstad E-mail Geek & MS-MVP > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:13 AM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > Thanks John. I saw that one as well, but it doesn't tell me > enough information about how much of an impact I can expect > on the registry. I understand the paging file and the RSL, > but I can't get a solid amount of information about a) what > to expect to be put in the registry *exactly* and > b) what exactly each registry entry can possibly take in > terms of size. > > A thousand scopes? Nice to hear, but that doesn't solve the > problem for me. > > > For more background, I currently have similar running across > four servers in two network sites. No problem. What I want > to do is isolate two different business types. As you can > imagine from the domain name, we're a financial institution > and we have retail branches across all lines of business. We > also have back-office needs. To make this more reliable, I > need to take into account the 8th layer and design > accordingly. My current track is to simplify by separation > and put the branch scopes on two servers and the > rest/exceptions on the other two. To do that, I need to know > the limits. > The additional benefit of knowing the quantifiable benefits > is the ability to predict capacity and lifespan of the > solution. That obviously plays into lifecycle management > planning of the solution. Due to the business nature of > finacial organizations, I have to plan for twice the capacity > of current. > In practice, that means that I have to at least know the > capacity abilities of the current solution or the future > solution enough to know that if an acquisition occurs, I can > either deploy more capacity else know that I can use the > current to that scale. > > The docs I've found so far, including the one you posted and > the information from Jorge were too high-level for what I'm > after. I appreciate them but I still need additional > information to make this design right. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks John, > > Al > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John > Reijnders > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 11:29 AM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > Hi Al, > > Looking in the Windows Server System Reference Architecture > you can read: > > "... scaling the DHCP service involves network infrastructure > issues for most enterprises." -> However, according to your > question this does not apply for your network. Lucky you ;-)! > > The following quote relates to your question: > > "You can create an unlimited number of scopes on a DHCP > server. However, a DHCP server should ideally host no more > than 1,000 scopes. When adding a large number of scopes to > the server, be aware that each scope creates a corresponding > need for additional disk space for the DHCP server registry > and the server paging file. > > Before deployment, you should test your DHCP servers on the > network to determine any limitations and abilities of your > hardware and to see whether the network architecture, > traffic, and other factors affect DHCP server performance." > > However, it still doesn't answer it. However, there is a > specific article about planning DHCP networks that might (not > sure) deal with this topic. > This is the URL: > http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2 > 003/standard/p > roddocs/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows Serv/2003/stan > dard/proddocs/en-us/sag_DHCP_imp_PlanningNetworks.asp > > Good luck! > John Reijnders > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al > Sent: maandag 3 januari 2005 17:08 > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > Thanks Jorge, I did see and read that. Unless I'm missing > something in there, it doesn't answer the questions however. > It does give some ideas, but it's not detailed enough to help. > > Al > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jorge de Almeida Pinto > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 11:02 AM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > Hi Al, > > Give a try with the W2K3 Deployment Kit - Designing Network > Services -> > http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2 > 003/all/deploy > guide/en-us/DNSBC_DHC_OVERVIEW.asp > > Regards, > Jorge > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al > Sent: maandag 3 januari 2005 15:15 > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: [ActiveDir] DHCP > > > > I'm looking for more precise information for DHCP sizing and > I'd appreciate any real-world information as well. > > What I'm trying to find out is how much registry space one > DHCP server requires at max capacity. I realize that a DHCP > server puts information in the registry for each scope. What > exactly it's supposed to put in there under any given > circumstance is a little less clear. How much space it > requires or a way to estimate how much possible space could > be used is totally unclear. I did find some information > about RSL (max registry size > basically) and about Microsoft's case study with their DHCP > usage. That's not enough information though. > > I'd like to find out what my limits are. For example, I'm > interested in what would happen if I put the entire 10.x.x.x > netblock on a single DHCP > server. Before you tell me that shouldn't happen because of fault > tolerance or network topology, I can tell you that network > bandwidth is not a problem I suffer from. Fault tolerance > for DHCP is often done via settings and the 80/20 split > concept, although at some point it's possible that one server > would have to achieve 100% during a failure scenario. Also, > what is 80% capacity for one server? > > Enough of the rambling... If anyone could point me in a > better direction, > I'd appreciate it. At worst, if you have any tools that > would help to measure registry impact, that would be > appreciated. I haven't investigated that route yet, but > suspect that sysinternals likely has something I can use. > I'm interested in the theoretical and the folks that wrote the code. > > Questions I need to answer: > What is the max possible impact of the DHCP application on > the registry? > What is the practical limit of a DHCP server in quantifiable terms? > > Additional question from me: > Does anyone have any documents they can point me to that give > the possible registry impact when scaling a DHCP server? > > > TIA > > (Happy New Year BTW to those following the Gregorian > Calendarical system ;) > > > > > > > Al Mulnick > > "I strive to be unique. Just like everybody else" > > > > > 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/ > > 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/ > 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/
