AD OU limitation?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory (More info?)

Just curious to know whether anyone is aware of any limitation Windows
Server 2003 AD has with regards to the number of user accounts which can
be held in one OU. I am looking at about 50k - 70k worth of accounts in
the one OU.

Any advice you have will be appreciated.

Thanks,

SK

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory (More info?)

Hierarchy is logical in AD ... the limitation is the same regardless of
an object's context. Aside from the obvious factors such as disk,
replication, CPU, net. and I/O bandwidth, memory and a variety of other
related bottlenecks ... AD is able to maintain a theoretical
(DC-lifetime) maximum of ~4 billion objects ... ~1 billion achievable I
believe.

--
Dean Wells [MVP / Directory Services]
MSEtechnology
[[ Please respond to the Newsgroup only regarding posts ]]
R e m o v e t h e m a s k t o s e n d e m a i l

Sam Khoury wrote:
> Just curious to know whether anyone is aware of any limitation Windows
> Server 2003 AD has with regards to the number of user accounts which
> can be held in one OU. I am looking at about 50k - 70k worth of
> accounts in the one OU.
>
> Any advice you have will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> SK

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory (More info?)

I have had over 100k users in a single OU. The biggest issue is using the GUI to
display them. I didn't use the GUI much so I didn't care but others that used
the GUI complained a lot. Eventually we did break it up for GPOs though so keep
that in mind.

joe

--
Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
www.joeware.net


Sam Khoury wrote:
> Just curious to know whether anyone is aware of any limitation Windows
> Server 2003 AD has with regards to the number of user accounts which can
> be held in one OU. I am looking at about 50k - 70k worth of accounts in
> the one OU.
>
> Any advice you have will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> SK