FIM Synchronization Service Performance for Different Topologies
Applies To: Forefront Identity Manager, Forefront Identity Manager 2010
One significant difference between MIIS 2003 and the FIM 2010 R2 Synchronization Service is that there is no longer a performance requirement to collocate the synchronization service with its database. For example, consider the following table of results for performing initial migrations of data and incremental synchronizations.
| Scale | Run type | Collocated service and database (hours:minutes) | Separated service and database (hours:minutes) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
451,253 total objects
|
Full import from AD DS |
3:10 |
3:50 |
18% |
|
Full Sync |
6:35 |
7:22 |
11% |
|
|
Export to file through XMA |
4:50 |
5:02 |
4% |
|
|
18,639 objects changed
|
Delta import from AD DS |
0:51 |
0:52 |
Negligible |
|
Delta Sync |
1:10 |
1:06 |
Negligible |
|
|
Export to file through XMA |
0:47 |
0:48 |
Negligible |
These results were achieved with a 1-Gigabits-per-second (Gbps) network connection between the FIM 2010 R2 Synchronization Service and its database. These tests showed that using a 1-Gbps network connection was 60 to 70 percent faster than a 100-megabits-per-second (Mbps) connection. You can expect degradation in performance of 25 to 30 percent if a 100-Mbps connection is used instead of a 1-Gbps connection.
See Also
Concepts
Performance Testing FIM Synchronization
Small Profile Performance Testing FIM Synchronization
Medium Profile Performance Testing FIM Synchronization
Performance Testing FIM Service