Re: slapd.conf cachesize only for ldbm?

[Micah Anderson <micah@riseup.net>]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Kirk A. Turner-Rustin wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Micah Anderson wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > 
> > I must not understand something here, 
> 
> Correct, but that's OK.
> 
> > if I have slapd.conf configured:
> > database    bdb
> > 
> > and am using sleepycat's Berkeley DB, then I am using back-bdb,
> > correct? 
> 
> Not necessarily. It depends on your version of OpenLDAP, which, on
> searching the archives for your messages, I find was originally 2.0.X,
> which does not support back-bdb.

Except I've taken the advice people have offered here and upgraded my
Openldap to 2.1.25 and have configured slapd to use bdb with Sleepycat
Berkeley 4.2.52, a more recent post where I describe what I am running
is at
http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200402/msg00337.html

> 
> > If so, then my question is, is back-bdb a LDBM? 
> 
> back-bdb is written to use Berkeley DB. back-ldbm may or may not use
> Berkeley DB, depending on how OpenLDAP was configured and built.

I know I am using back-bdb because my slapd.conf has:
database    bdb

And I know the difference between back-bdb and back-ldbm, I've read
those faq entries, thats why I switched from back-ldbm to back-bdb.

What I dont understand, and this is what my original post was about,
is this entry in the slapd.conf about the cachesize:

Specify the size in entries of the in-memory cache maintained by the
LDBM backend database instance. The default is 1000 entries.
^^^^

Does this mean back-ldbm, or is LDBM (all caps) a general term which
actually means back-ldbm or back-dbd?


> You need to read these FAQ articles about the differences between the
> different back ends in general, and between back-bdb and back-ldbm
> in particular.

See above.

micah