Bugs
0
Fixed
FIM/ILM LDIF Service - MaxReceivedMessageSize being surpassed
Tony Sheehy 14 years ago
in UNIFYBroker/Microsoft Identity Manager
•
updated by anonymous 9 years ago •
5
The MaxReceivedMessageSize is being surpassed for large imports - ~500,000 entities and upwards.
A quick fix is to simply edit the MaxReceivedMessageSize to be its maximum value:
maxReceivedMessageSize = "2147483647"
However, this may only be hiding a more ingrained systematic problem - Why is the IDB Service sending a SOAP message that would surpass the recommended configuration?.
A determination needs to be made about the correct course of action with regards to this behaviour.
Customer support service by UserEcho
©2025 UNIFY Solutions Pty. Ltd.
Assigned to Tony.
The easiest way to go about this is to log the entire SOAP messages coming through the LDIF service - this will be achieved with the following config - and view the largest SOAP message:
<system.diagnostics> <sources> <source name="System.ServiceModel" switchValue="Verbose,ActivityTracing"> <listeners> <add name="ServiceModelTraceListener" initializeData="c:\MyTracelog.svclog" type="System.Diagnostics.XmlWriterTraceListener, System, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089" traceOutputOptions="Timestamp"/> </listeners> </source> </sources> <trace autoflush="true" /> <system.serviceModel> <diagnostics> <messageLogging logEntireMessage="true" logMalformedMessages="true" logMessagesAtServiceLevel="true" logMessagesAtTransportLevel="true" /> </diagnostics> </system.serviceModel>As the received message size has been confirmed to scale with the number of entities - all that should be required is for the IDBFIM documentation to be updated to reflect the additional requirements. This should only be a problem for adapters that should anticipate substantial imports (~500,000 entities or attribute rich entities).
This value can reach 10,000,000 terabytes - which should more than adequetly facilitate the requirements of such potential circumstances.
The only problem to this solution is that it potentially introduces security issues - as defined here
Reassigned for confirmation of correctness/completion.
Confirmed. Thanks.