RE: [ActiveDir] /3GB and/or /USERVA and/or /PAE???
nd frequently run with 200 to 300windows open, and persistently run out of desktop heap (a kernel moderesource, I've even increased this several times), I'm greatlyanticipating having a 64-bit desktop for "whizbang GUI stuff".I had some comments on the cost debate, but I'll put that on another forkof the thread ...Cheers,BrettSh [msft]ESE DeveloperThis posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers norights.--O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm________________________From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike BaudinoSent: Monday, November 06, 2006 4:10 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] /3GB and/or /USERVA and/or /PAE???Thank you Paul, Brian, and Sue,/3GB makes sense to me as well. We put a call into Microsoft on Saturday and were told that we wanted /PAE but not /3GB. But all they appeared to go by were the published kb articles, which we had already gone over, not found conclusive, and hence called Microsoft.When's the Server 2003 version of Notes from the Field going to come out??? (rhetorical...)Any issues with /PAE and /3GB in conjunction? We're not running enterprise but our Wintel team, who built the servers, put /PAE in the boot.ini on most of the physical boxes with 4GB phyiscal RAM. I read, in a kb article, that /PAE and /3GB can put strain on the system.Brian, yes, quads were serious overkill but that's what our Wintel team wanted out there. We spec'd pizza boxes since they're in field offices. Some FOs have upwards of 1,000 folks in them though. 35,000 across North America.Thanks,MikeOn 11/6/06, Paul Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You need 4GT enabled (/3GB switch) if these only function as DCs. There's not much info. on this, but if you want to get the maximum LSASS footprint into RAM (~2.7GB) then you need to enable 4GT. If you're running K3 SP1 Enterprise then PAE is enabled by default and therefore the boot.ini switch is not necessary. I don't think you need to worry about PAE although sometimes the full RAM doesn't show up unless you do enable it (or, in some cases, tweak some BIOS setting). --Paul - Original Message - From: Mike Baudino <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 5:30 PM Subject: [ActiveDir] /3GB and/or /USERVA and/or /PAE??? Hi all, We're running a Server 2003 AD environment across 110 DCs across North America and Europe. We have physical DCs on a variety of fairly new hardware and ESX VMs. Older server hardware, approx two years old: quad proc 2GB ram ESX VMs: dual proc 3.6GB ram New server hardware, from this summer: quad proc 4GB ram Our DIT is around 2.3-2.4 GB and still growing slowly as we continue migrations of users. Server migrations coming next. There's no Exchange in our environment and the DCs are single-purpose as we don't permit anything else to be loaded on them (except for SYSVOL, antivirus, and monitoring tools, of course). My concern is that none of the older hardware or the VMs are running /3GB or /PAE. Some of the new hardware is running /PAE and some is not. I would like to have some degree of consistency. From what I can tell, running /3GB would make sense on the VMs and the newer physical boxes as it would permit more RAM to be allocated LSASS. If we use /3GB do we need to, or want to, use /USERVA? I don't see any advantage, and in fact a disadvantage, to running /PAE. The disadvantage may just be "bad press" but it appears that there are issues with /PAE compatibility. Also, it appears that /PAE has no impact at or below 4GB? I read another thread from earlier this summer that the VMs should probably be replaced. We're looking into that but it will take a while. The thread seemed to indicate that /3GB might be the way to go. Anyway, I would like to know what you're running and/or would recommend. Called Microsoft about this and they looked up the same article that we already had but seemed to offer no advise based on real world experience. You guys are where the rubber meets the road. Thanks, Mike
Re: [ActiveDir] /3GB and/or /USERVA and/or /PAE???
Thank you Paul, Brian, and Sue, /3GB makes sense to me as well. We put a call into Microsoft on Saturday and were told that we wanted /PAE but not /3GB. But all they appeared to go by were the published kb articles, which we had already gone over, not found conclusive, and hence called Microsoft. When's the Server 2003 version of Notes from the Field going to come out??? (rhetorical...) Any issues with /PAE and /3GB in conjunction? We're not running enterprise but our Wintel team, who built the servers, put /PAE in the boot.ini on most of the physical boxes with 4GB phyiscal RAM. I read, in a kb article, that /PAE and /3GB can put strain on the system. Brian, yes, quads were serious overkill but that's what our Wintel team wanted out there. We spec'd pizza boxes since they're in field offices. Some FOs have upwards of 1,000 folks in them though. 35,000 across North America. Thanks,Mike On 11/6/06, Paul Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You need 4GT enabled (/3GB switch) if these only function as DCs. There's not much info. on this, but if you want to get the maximum LSASS footprint into RAM (~2.7GB) then you need to enable 4GT. If you're running K3 SP1 Enterprise then PAE is enabled by default and therefore the boot.ini switch is not necessary. I don't think you need to worry about PAE although sometimes the full RAM doesn't show up unless you do enable it (or, in some cases, tweak some BIOS setting). --Paul - Original Message - From: Mike Baudino To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 5:30 PM Subject: [ActiveDir] /3GB and/or /USERVA and/or /PAE??? Hi all, We're running a Server 2003 AD environment across 110 DCs across North America and Europe. We have physical DCs on a variety of fairly new hardware and ESX VMs. Older server hardware, approx two years old: quad proc 2GB ram ESX VMs: dual proc 3.6GB ram New server hardware, from this summer: quad proc 4GB ram Our DIT is around 2.3-2.4 GB and still growing slowly as we continue migrations of users. Server migrations coming next. There's no Exchange in our environment and the DCs are single-purpose as we don't permit anything else to be loaded on them (except for SYSVOL, antivirus, and monitoring tools, of course). My concern is that none of the older hardware or the VMs are running /3GB or /PAE. Some of the new hardware is running /PAE and some is not. I would like to have some degree of consistency. From what I can tell, running /3GB would make sense on the VMs and the newer physical boxes as it would permit more RAM to be allocated LSASS. If we use /3GB do we need to, or want to, use /USERVA? I don't see any advantage, and in fact a disadvantage, to running /PAE. The disadvantage may just be "bad press" but it appears that there are issues with /PAE compatibility. Also, it appears that /PAE has no impact at or below 4GB? I read another thread from earlier this summer that the VMs should probably be replaced. We're looking into that but it will take a while. The thread seemed to indicate that /3GB might be the way to go. Anyway, I would like to know what you're running and/or would recommend. Called Microsoft about this and they looked up the same article that we already had but seemed to offer no advise based on real world experience. You guys are where the rubber meets the road. Thanks,Mike
Re: [ActiveDir] /3GB and/or /USERVA and/or /PAE???
You need 4GT enabled (/3GB switch) if these only function as DCs. There's not much info. on this, but if you want to get the maximum LSASS footprint into RAM (~2.7GB) then you need to enable 4GT. If you're running K3 SP1 Enterprise then PAE is enabled by default and therefore the boot.ini switch is not necessary. I don't think you need to worry about PAE although sometimes the full RAM doesn't show up unless you do enable it (or, in some cases, tweak some BIOS setting). --Paul - Original Message - From: Mike Baudino To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 5:30 PM Subject: [ActiveDir] /3GB and/or /USERVA and/or /PAE??? Hi all, We're running a Server 2003 AD environment across 110 DCs across North America and Europe. We have physical DCs on a variety of fairly new hardware and ESX VMs. Older server hardware, approx two years old: quad proc 2GB ram ESX VMs: dual proc 3.6GB ram New server hardware, from this summer: quad proc 4GB ram Our DIT is around 2.3-2.4 GB and still growing slowly as we continue migrations of users. Server migrations coming next. There's no Exchange in our environment and the DCs are single-purpose as we don't permit anything else to be loaded on them (except for SYSVOL, antivirus, and monitoring tools, of course). My concern is that none of the older hardware or the VMs are running /3GB or /PAE. Some of the new hardware is running /PAE and some is not. I would like to have some degree of consistency. From what I can tell, running /3GB would make sense on the VMs and the newer physical boxes as it would permit more RAM to be allocated LSASS. If we use /3GB do we need to, or want to, use /USERVA? I don't see any advantage, and in fact a disadvantage, to running /PAE. The disadvantage may just be "bad press" but it appears that there are issues with /PAE compatibility. Also, it appears that /PAE has no impact at or below 4GB? I read another thread from earlier this summer that the VMs should probably be replaced. We're looking into that but it will take a while. The thread seemed to indicate that /3GB might be the way to go. Anyway, I would like to know what you're running and/or would recommend. Called Microsoft about this and they looked up the same article that we already had but seemed to offer no advise based on real world experience. You guys are where the rubber meets the road. Thanks,Mike
RE: [ActiveDir] /3GB and/or /USERVA and/or /PAE???
You do want /3GB on the DCs but not /PAE. The older ones with 2gb don’t need either. What I want to know is why you’re not loading x64 Windows which solves this problem? Given your DIT is at 2.4GB and growing if you want to get it into memory (better perf), it will fit now but it shortly won’t – buy more RAM. Quad proc is a lot of horsepower … must be some busy sites you’re putting these into. Thanks, Brian Desmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] c - 312.731.3132 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Baudino Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 12:30 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] /3GB and/or /USERVA and/or /PAE??? Hi all, We're running a Server 2003 AD environment across 110 DCs across North America and Europe. We have physical DCs on a variety of fairly new hardware and ESX VMs. Older server hardware, approx two years old: quad proc 2GB ram ESX VMs: dual proc 3.6GB ram New server hardware, from this summer: quad proc 4GB ram Our DIT is around 2.3-2.4 GB and still growing slowly as we continue migrations of users. Server migrations coming next. There's no Exchange in our environment and the DCs are single-purpose as we don't permit anything else to be loaded on them (except for SYSVOL, antivirus, and monitoring tools, of course). My concern is that none of the older hardware or the VMs are running /3GB or /PAE. Some of the new hardware is running /PAE and some is not. I would like to have some degree of consistency. From what I can tell, running /3GB would make sense on the VMs and the newer physical boxes as it would permit more RAM to be allocated LSASS. If we use /3GB do we need to, or want to, use /USERVA? I don't see any advantage, and in fact a disadvantage, to running /PAE. The disadvantage may just be "bad press" but it appears that there are issues with /PAE compatibility. Also, it appears that /PAE has no impact at or below 4GB? I read another thread from earlier this summer that the VMs should probably be replaced. We're looking into that but it will take a while. The thread seemed to indicate that /3GB might be the way to go. Anyway, I would like to know what you're running and/or would recommend. Called Microsoft about this and they looked up the same article that we already had but seemed to offer no advise based on real world experience. You guys are where the rubber meets the road. Thanks, Mike
Re: [ActiveDir] /3GB and/or /USERVA and/or /PAE???
I know you said you aren't using Exchange but most of the threads on /3 that I've seen are on the Ehlo blog http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2005/07/05/407330.aspx http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2004/08/20/217772.aspx That one points to Raymond Chen's links Mike Baudino wrote: Hi all, We're running a Server 2003 AD environment across 110 DCs across North America and Europe. We have physical DCs on a variety of fairly new hardware and ESX VMs. Older server hardware, approx two years old: quad proc 2GB ram ESX VMs: dual proc 3.6GB ram New server hardware, from this summer: quad proc 4GB ram Our DIT is around 2.3-2.4 GB and still growing slowly as we continue migrations of users. Server migrations coming next. There's no Exchange in our environment and the DCs are single-purpose as we don't permit anything else to be loaded on them (except for SYSVOL, antivirus, and monitoring tools, of course). My concern is that none of the older hardware or the VMs are running /3GB or /PAE. Some of the new hardware is running /PAE and some is not. I would like to have some degree of consistency. From what I can tell, running /3GB would make sense on the VMs and the newer physical boxes as it would permit more RAM to be allocated LSASS. If we use /3GB do we need to, or want to, use /USERVA? I don't see any advantage, and in fact a disadvantage, to running /PAE. The disadvantage may just be "bad press" but it appears that there are issues with /PAE compatibility. Also, it appears that /PAE has no impact at or below 4GB? I read another thread from earlier this summer that the VMs should probably be replaced. We're looking into that but it will take a while. The thread seemed to indicate that /3GB might be the way to go. Anyway, I would like to know what you're running and/or would recommend. Called Microsoft about this and they looked up the same article that we already had but seemed to offer no advise based on real world experience. You guys are where the rubber meets the road. Thanks, Mike List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir@mail.activedir.org/
[ActiveDir] /3GB and/or /USERVA and/or /PAE???
Hi all, We're running a Server 2003 AD environment across 110 DCs across North America and Europe. We have physical DCs on a variety of fairly new hardware and ESX VMs. Older server hardware, approx two years old: quad proc 2GB ram ESX VMs: dual proc 3.6GB ram New server hardware, from this summer: quad proc 4GB ram Our DIT is around 2.3-2.4 GB and still growing slowly as we continue migrations of users. Server migrations coming next. There's no Exchange in our environment and the DCs are single-purpose as we don't permit anything else to be loaded on them (except for SYSVOL, antivirus, and monitoring tools, of course). My concern is that none of the older hardware or the VMs are running /3GB or /PAE. Some of the new hardware is running /PAE and some is not. I would like to have some degree of consistency. From what I can tell, running /3GB would make sense on the VMs and the newer physical boxes as it would permit more RAM to be allocated LSASS. If we use /3GB do we need to, or want to, use /USERVA? I don't see any advantage, and in fact a disadvantage, to running /PAE. The disadvantage may just be "bad press" but it appears that there are issues with /PAE compatibility. Also, it appears that /PAE has no impact at or below 4GB? I read another thread from earlier this summer that the VMs should probably be replaced. We're looking into that but it will take a while. The thread seemed to indicate that /3GB might be the way to go. Anyway, I would like to know what you're running and/or would recommend. Called Microsoft about this and they looked up the same article that we already had but seemed to offer no advise based on real world experience. You guys are where the rubber meets the road. Thanks,Mike
