[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Quick practical observation re DBD default configuration
- To: openldap-bugs@OpenLDAP.org
- Subject: Re: Quick practical observation re DBD default configuration
- From: "Richard L. Goerwitz III" <richard@Goerwitz.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:09:20 -0600
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Organization: Goerwitz.COM
- References: <00e201c4bca8$f16fa550$9701a8c0@digicertdemo1> <45CB91EA810B8D9CFA084211@cadabra-dsl.stanford.edu> <015a01c4bcb2$1d162e50$9701a8c0@digicertdemo1> <20041028160956.X33003@mippet.ci.com.au> <006301c4c080$f5c23970$9701a8c0@digicertdemo1> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <41877C83.2040701@Goerwitz.COM> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040922
Howard Chu wrote:
Thanks. I'd read these pages several times.
My goal was really more just to offer a practical observation that
a certain amount of fussing seems to be necessary in order to go
from a base installation to a usable configuration.
I am virtually certain that most new OpenLDAP administrators would
not understand how to go from an inability to allocate space from
a buffer cache to a cache setting in a DB_CONFIG file that doesn't
The LDIF load I did was only of a few thousand objects. This was
with the latest Berkeley DB.
My sense (not as an OpenLDAP develper [which I'm not], but as a
programmer who's done work in other areas) is that the default
configuration of OpenLDAP and the BDB back end - if it's possible
to do so - would benefit from a slightly more admin-friendly
When I've been involved in software projects, I've found that I
quickly get so 'pickled' in the documentation and setup that I
lose a sense of how normal, intelligent (albeit beginner) admins
think. Things that are obvious to me (one would hope) may seem
quite inscrutable to them. Some of this is inevitable.
I hope this note will be helpful.
If not, I'm sorry.
Richard Goerwitz richard@Goerwitz.COM
tel: 507 645 7015