The Good News Is... (a hotfix we have developed for shorter LDAP timeout)

re: The Good News Is... (a hotfix we have developed for shorter LDAP timeout)

Michael Kohlman (MKohlman) — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:34:46 GMT

You made my days guys! Not only is this exactly the kind of stuff that I thought would be useful to see (not only for myself but for others) but we are in the in the process of deploying a single Exchange cluster servicing multiple child domains over some pretty questionable (on occasion) WAN links. This info is very relevant and the history behind is very interesting indeed.

re: The Good News Is... (a hotfix we have developed for shorter LDAP timeout)

Christian Schindler — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 21:53:47 GMT

This is why I like this blog. It proves that the exchange team listens to it's customers. Excelent!

re: The Good News Is... (a hotfix we have developed for shorter LDAP timeout)

jasperk — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:05:55 GMT

And we like our customers too because they read the blog and write comments!

re: The Good News Is... (a hotfix we have developed for shorter LDAP timeout)

Steven Z — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:31:56 GMT

Is there a way to force a local GC?

Thnaks,
Steve

re: The Good News Is... (a hotfix we have developed for shorter LDAP timeout)

jasperk — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:59:04 GMT

Please read the referenced "Exchange Does Not Always Use Local GCs" Steve. A local GC (local domain) cannot service EVERY query and a few need to go to DCs in remote domains which will likely be in a remote site. Of course you could design your AD topology such that there is a DC for every domain in every site to ensure every query is serviced locally, but that would really wasteful. And ugly!

re: The Good News Is... (a hotfix we have developed for shorter LDAP timeout)

Steve Z — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:37:30 GMT

Is there a way to tell Exhchange not to try and use certain GC' that may be behind a FW and the Exchange server tries to go to the GC behind the firewall when It has a GC localy.

Thanks,
Steve

re: The Good News Is... (a hotfix we have developed for shorter LDAP timeout)

jasperk — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:49:31 GMT

I will say this Steve: There is no way today to tell Exchange NOT to use a particular GC

re: The Good News Is... (a hotfix we have developed for shorter LDAP timeout)

joe — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:33:28 GMT

1. I am interested in the 24 retries. Why did you not allow that to be tuneable since you were already in the code? How did you happen to pick 24? Any significance or is that what the dart hit?

2. How does the LDAP query queue for dsaccess work? Is it a prio queue? fifo? Preemptive (either forced or cooperative)? When you say retry is it a requeue or does it just sit there spinning until all 24 retries have occurred?

joe

re: The Good News Is... (a hotfix we have developed for shorter LDAP timeout)

jasperk — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:49:00 GMT

Hi Joe,

The answer to your first question is I don't know :) I dont know how 24 was arrived at but I dont think the actual number is that important as long as its not ridiculously high or low. You also can't make everything tuneable or else you run into the kinds of problems described in this post
http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.219431.12

For your second question, no, we dont just sit there spinning until all 24 retries have occurred. Its a lot more sophisticated, highly optimized retry mechanism

Weekend reading

subject: exchange — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 15:32:43 GMT

Research In Motion and NTP Sign Definitive Settlement Agreement to End Litigation
RIM Announces Availability...

Exchange Does Not Always Use The Local GC(s)

J's Den -- Jasper Kuria's WebLog — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 02:11:59 GMT

Here is the updated, corrected post. Exchange Does Not Always Use Local GC(s). Thanks to Dmitri for his...