Re: Whitepaper on win2003 DNS performance ?
From: Ace Fekay [MVP] (PleaseSubstituteMyActualFirstName&LastNameHere_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/03/05
- Next message: Ace Fekay [MVP]: "Re: Whitepaper on win2003 DNS performance ?"
- Previous message: Ace Fekay [MVP]: "Re: 6702 all by myself"
- In reply to: Herb Martin: "Re: Whitepaper on win2003 DNS performance ?"
- Next in thread: Herb Martin: "Re: Whitepaper on win2003 DNS performance ?"
- Reply: Herb Martin: "Re: Whitepaper on win2003 DNS performance ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 19:08:57 -0500
In news:u2m$H187EHA.3236@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
Herb Martin <news@LearnQuick.com> made a post then I commented below
:: The entire AD database can be loaded (cached) into
:: something like (probably less) 80 Meg so a bit of ram
:: will help. Caching the entire DNS database (whether
:: as part of AD or separately) would only add a negligible
:: amount.
I believe it's much larger than that. That sounds more of an NT4 size based
on user/computer accounts.
I need to dig up the calculations to confirm this. IIRC, the physical AD
database size with a base of 10,000 users with Win2k and/or XP computers,
that are all mailbox enabled is almost 500 megs.
Ace
- Next message: Ace Fekay [MVP]: "Re: Whitepaper on win2003 DNS performance ?"
- Previous message: Ace Fekay [MVP]: "Re: 6702 all by myself"
- In reply to: Herb Martin: "Re: Whitepaper on win2003 DNS performance ?"
- Next in thread: Herb Martin: "Re: Whitepaper on win2003 DNS performance ?"
- Reply: Herb Martin: "Re: Whitepaper on win2003 DNS performance ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|