Title: LDAP performance
We're running into what appears to be some performance issues. We have several AD servers that we dedicate to doing LDAP authentications for various applications. We recently added a new application that performs a large number of binds. The day we cut the applicati
veDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
We're running into what appears to be some
performance issues. We have several AD servers that we dedicate to doing
LDAP authentications for various applications. We recently added a new
application that performs a large number of binds. The day
Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Isenhour, Joseph
Sent: Mon 6/13/2005 5:01 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP performance
Oops one correction:
100 binds per second
D] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 5:27 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP performance
Something similar came up for discussion last week. My response was to
increase the maxreceivebuffer size.
See Q315071 and Q834317
HTH
Sincerely,
="">
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isenhour,
JosephSent: Monday, June 13, 2005 7:55 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
We're running into what appears to be some
performance issues. We have
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 8:27 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP performance
Something similar came up for discussion last week. My response was to
increase the maxreceivebuffer size.
See Q315071 and Q834317
HTH
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fleischman
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 7:12 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP performance
It's hard to really give any sort of analysis with the data provided.
Do you have any network traces of entering "failure" state that we c
ldap (389), Seq: 0, Ack: 0, Len: 0
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Monday, June 13, 2005 10:09 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
What errors specific
] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Monday, June 13, 2005 10:09 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
What errors specifically are the clients seeing? Is the
server returning any extended information or are the connections just dying on
the vine? And if so are you sure
Title: LDAP performance
Netstat -* will yield this info.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isenhour, Joseph
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 9:24
AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
Great article joe
performance
Netstat -* will yield
this info.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Isenhour,
JosephSent: Tuesday, June 14,
2005 9:24 AMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
Great
article joe. It definitely sounds
On Behalf Of Eric
FleischmanSent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:38 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
Netstat -* will yield
this info.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Isenhour,
JosephSent: Tuesday, June 14,
2005
and may not be desired on this
server.
Has anyone seen this one?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael B.
SmithSent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:57 AMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
Not on any of my versions of netst
843
anotherServer:1025 ESTABLISHED 4056
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:57
AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
Not on any of my versions of netstat,
b
Title: LDAP performance
You did a "*" the first time! :-)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric
FleischmanSent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 5:04 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
The one that comes on
the XP
:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Eric
FleischmanSent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:04 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
The one that comes on
the XP CD. :)
C:\>netstat
-o
Active
Connecti
@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
You did a "*" the first time!
:-)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fleischman
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 5:04
PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
p
, June 14, 2005 5:28 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
That was a -*,
indicating that there is some switch you should use, and that was an exercise I
was leaving to the reader.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Michael B
: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 5:28
PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
That was a -*, indicating that there is
some switch you should use, and that was an exercise I was leaving to the
reader.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
You did a "*" the first
time! :-)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Eric
FleischmanSent: Tuesday, June
14, 2005 5:04 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
The one tha
o.
joe
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isenhour,
JosephSent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:06 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
The application owner says that they are not seeing any
extended error info. The
@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
From port 42217? What was the client OS again? That
doesn't sound like Windows. Windows client I would expect port down in the range
specified by the KB article. That modification they specify is for the client
machine.
For instan
veDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
The client OS is BlueCoat. Are you saying that 42217
is too high a port for windows to accept? I thought it could go all the
way up to 65535?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 6:04
Title: LDAP performance
Nice machine name….. descriptive, to be sure.
Rick
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:04
PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] LDAP
performance
From port 42217
24 matches
Mail list logo
