Re: paged results vs socket send buffer size

[Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> Michael Ströder writes:
> > Is that really a problem?  How often is "occasionally"?
>
> Don't know, and don't know.
>
> > To me 2.5 MB does not sound so much to justify thinking about changing
> > the client app in such a network- and data-specific way.
>
> OK, good.  I've no experience with that kind of search result sizes
> myself. 

I can only speak of situations where I retrieve the whole directory (up 
to 300000 entries) for syncing. But this does not happen very often and 
my sync scripts call ldap_result() quite soon and process results as 
they come in.

> getgrent() with nss_ldap.  Others may come later.

Hmm, maybe that's what Volker Lendecke was talking about at LDAPcon 2007 
regarding enumeration of groups. See his slides:

http://www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ldapcon2007/slides/ldapcon_lendecke.pdf

> > Does it block other operations from different apps?
>
> Don't know yet, that's what I was wondering about.  Like I said I
> imagine it can, if the threads get blocked.  We've just multiplied the
> server-side sizelimit with 200 to accomodate the change:-(

I guess user-specific limits won't help much.

Ciao, Michael.