H isn't it? Everyone should be used to being slapped
>and told they have to say they like it by then. :)
>
> joe
>
>
>
>[1] Being facetious here, though I don't really expect MS Exch
>Dev to change how they recommend DC hardware for Exchange.
>
>--
>O&#x
Profile & Publications:
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=35E388DE-4885-4308-B489-F2F1214C811
> D
> Weblog: http://msmvps.org/UlfBSimonWeidner
> Website: http://www.windowsserverfaq.org
>
>
>
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EM
Weblog: http://msmvps.org/UlfBSimonWeidner
Website: http://www.windowsserverfaq.org
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley
>Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 7:57 AM
>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir]
e thinking like that).
>
> Gruesse - Sincerely,
>
> Ulf B. Simon-Weidner
>
> Profile & Publications:
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=35E388DE-4885-4308-B489-F2F1214C811
> D
> Weblog: http://msmvps.org/UlfBSimonWeidner
> Website: http://www.window
our goal on the
different systems.
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 3:37 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE
alf Of Ulf B.
Simon-Weidner
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 2:42 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
Nice - poking with the finger works - give it to me babe ;-)
I wasn't aware that ADSI is 100% LDAP, I thought it's just 9x% + some
special stuff (AFAIK se
r the next
few days.
~Eric
-Original Message-
From: Eric Fleischman
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:39 AM
To: 'ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
> DNTs are reusable in ESE, however ADs implementation does not allow
DNTs
> to be rel
om: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fleischman
Sent: Friday, 9 June 2006 10:38 a.m.
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
After this thread (I believe Dean asked what the error was at one point,
but I can't find that tip of the threa
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
Great info ~Eric!
The link to the start of the thread is:
http://www.activedir.org/ml/msg08620.aspx
We've just moved the archive onto the ActiveDir.org web site and we're
having one or two teething problems with the search feature. :-)
Tony
---
ound along the way over the next few
days.
~Eric
-Original Message-
From: Eric Fleischman
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:39 AM
To: 'ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
> DNTs are reusable in ESE, however ADs implementation does not allo
Title: User Accounts
I expect more than you need.
Anyway, depends on the use and quality of the DCs as well
as the other objects in the directory but last I heard MS had tested in the ball
park of 40,000,000 (40 million) objects.
I have personally run domains with >100k users (forest
was
Title: User Accounts
I was told 5 billion objects ( In Theory )
when I took the Windows Server 2000, “ Designing a Microsoft Windows
2000 Networking Services Infrastructure “, taught by Cathy Moya at
Quickstart Technologies ( Now with Microsoft ).
Joe, has Microsoft changed this in A
, 2006 12:06 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
I
expect more than you need.
Anyway,
depends on the use and quality of the DCs as well as the other objects in the
directory but last I heard MS had tested in the ball park of 40,000,000 (40
million) objects
ology* Email: dwells@msetechnology.comhttp://msetechnology.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Medeiros,
JoseSent: Friday, April 14, 2006 10:39 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] User
Accounts
I was told 5 billion
objects ( In T
ater.
[6] Why are you reading this footnote, I didn't reference
it. :)
--
[7]O'Reilly Active
Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean
WellsSent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 9:48 AMTo: Send - AD
CTED] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:49 AMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] User
Accounts
I agree with Dean on this. :o)
The only user logical or implementation related limitation
I could think of off the top of my head would be around SIDs and you
1:15 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User
Accounts
Actually I am going to bust myself here
before Dean or someone else does. The SIDS are going to be limited into the
billions. Not due to the SID structure, but due to locations where RIDs are
stored as DWORDs (32 bit
mhttp://msetechnology.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric
FleischmanSent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 8:58 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] User
Accounts
Good
thread.
A few corrections,
for the sake of keepin
org Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile="">
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric
FleischmanSent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 2:58 AMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] User
Accounts
Good
ating, ever. ;o)
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ulf B.
Simon-WeidnerSent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 10:26 AMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] User
Acc
because GCs of course have
> partial NCs. But ADAM, no worries. Well, unless your large # of objects
> in AD are in NDNCs.
>
>
>
> The larger directories I have worked with had ~100M objects on a single
> server. I haven't seen people break that on a single boxbut I don't
> deny it has been done, I just
tt Shirley
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 8:47 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
Eric's quoting didn't come across in pine so well, so I've improved it by
using ">>" where he was quoting others ...
*Ahem* ... for the hex heads ..
; >> test or production directories well within this arena.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is actually a subtle point herethere is max # of
> users in a
> > single directory instance (ie, on one given DC/ADAM
> instance), and max
> > # in the entire distr
D
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley
|Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:47 AM
|To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
|Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
|
|
|Eric's quoting didn't come across in pine so well, so I'
Title: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
> I don't look very happy> imagining running ADMT or some other migration tool against 100M Object ADs
You don't need to think about anything like ADMT. In your scenario, with object overturn and DNT depletion, you would simply need t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 7:04 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
Excellent post Brett, had me laughing and learning all of the way. Even
folks who don't understand it should read it IMO, probably twice.
Dean cle
ttp://msmvps.org/UlfBSimonWeidner
> Website: <http://www.windowsserverfaq.org/>
> http://www.windowsserverfaq.org
> Profile:
> <http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=35E388DE-4885-4308-B489-F2F1214C81
> 1D>
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=35E388DE-
sday, April 18, 2006 12:32 AM
|To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
|Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
|
|
|In my experience the type of forest you're thinking about is a
|different beast, Ulf ...
|
|I don't know a single customer that has a NOS / IT
|infrastructure forest with 10M objects, i
"Never take me to serious"
Seriously? :)
(Great thread by the way)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ulf B.
Simon-Weidner
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:06 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Ac
f B.
Simon-Weidner
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:06 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
Hi Brett,
I don't want you to say or admit anything - I'm just curious and having
a
conversation here ;-)
I was refering to your sentence
> I've heard
Dir@mail.activedir.org
|Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
|
|"Never take me to serious"
|
|Seriously? :)
|
|(Great thread by the way)
|
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ulf B.
|Simon-Weidner
|Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:06 PM
|
Hi ~eric,
Thanks for the answer.
Ulf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric
|Fleischman
|Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:05 AM
|To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
|Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
|
|Yes, both Brett and I have
chnology
> * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://msetechnology.com
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley
> > Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 8:47 PM
> > To: ActiveDir@ma
; Cc: Send - AD mailing list
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
>
>
> Dean, I didn't understand this comment ...
> > But, dude, seriously, you weren't aware that AD's ESE used
> a 32 bit DNT?
> > Methinks perhaps you're muddling in the realms
rosoft.com/profile=35E388DE-4885-4308-B489-F2F1214C811
D
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Wells
|Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 1:18 AM
|To: Send - AD mailing list
|Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
|
|Inline is my take on an IM
l 2006 01:18
To: Send - AD mailing list
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
Inline is my take on an IM conv. Brett and I just had, the result and
content of which turned up some interesting (to me at least)
implementation
details. The short story is -
* DNTs (to me) are _not_ a component o
last
left off, as you are using the old database again, and so the same AD
level rules apply.
~Eric
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ulf B.
Simon-Weidner
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:40 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE:
mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
>
> >* DNTs (to me) are _not_ a component of the directory
>
> IIRC they are like a (primary/foreign) key in a database.
> Technically not needed by the database layer, and not needed
> by the application, but n
sage-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric
|Fleischman
|Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:39 PM
|To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
|Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
|
|> DNTs are reusable in ESE, however ADs implementation does not allow
|DNTs
|> to be r
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Wells
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 10:46 AM
To: Send - AD mailing list
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User Accounts
Inline ...
--
Dean Wells
MSEtechnology
* Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://msetechnology.com
> -Original Message-
This article contains the on troubleshooting account lockout,
http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Implementing-Troubleshooting-Account-Lockout.html
plus you can look at Best practices guide for account lockout.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=8c8e0d90-a13b-4977-a4fc-3e2
for starters - check out:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/technologies/security/bpactlck.mspx
and
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=7AF2E69C-91F3-4E63-8629-B999ADDE0B9E&displaylang=en
steve
- Original Message -
From:
S
I can't explain it to you, but you aren't alone. I've seen exactly the
same thing happen (and I'm in the same environment you describe). But it
never made it high enough up my priority list to investigate.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of C
on behalf of Michael B. Smith
Sent: Tue 8/16/2005 1:32 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts with showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUE
I can't explain it to you, but you aren't alone. I've seen exactly the
same thing happen (and I'm in the same env
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael B.
Smith
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:33 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts with showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUE
I can't explain it to you, but you aren't alone. I've seen exactly the
same thing ha
Yes, I run Unity in UM mode.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Free, Bob
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:56 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts with showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUE
This is a bit surreal
ee, Bob
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:56 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts with showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUE
This is a bit surreal, I *just* got asked about this exact situation
only a couple of minutes after Charlie's message.
We are in a very simila
y?
-anon
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Michael B. Smith
Sent: Tue 8/16/2005 1:32 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts with showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUE
I can't explain it to you, but you aren't alone. I've see
] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:53 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts with
> showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUE
>
> Exchange in the mix. Is custom address list in the mix also?
> Using restricted
Unity a common denominator?-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Michael B.SmithSent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:33 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts with showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUEI can't explain
/16/2005 2:19 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts with showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUE
Yes, I have hundreds of restricted address lists. Do you have a reference you
could share?
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [
5:25 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] User
accounts with showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUE
I've seen this behavior every few months. We have Unity as well
and I always blamed it on it as I've never seen this on any of my clients who
do not
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Free, Bob
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:19 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts with
> showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUE
>
> Well, here's what we found-
>
&
you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Charlie Kaiser
Sent: Tue 8/16/2005 2:44 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts with showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUE
OK; I just looked at that and verified that if I set the "
"
The "list in phone directory" setting doesn't make any difference.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Free, Bob
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:19 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Free, Bob
Sent: Tue 8/16/2005 2:29 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts with showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUE
Hope it's not bad juju to reply to myself 2x in the same day :-]
Here's what our Unity admi
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 3:12 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] User accounts with
> showInAdvancedViewOnly=TRUE
>
> Charlie, the mod you are doing in
57 matches
Mail list logo
