[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#5189) slapadd -q breaks db_stat -c
> These are backend-specific considerations. Feel free to file an ITS
> against the slapd-bdb(5) manpage if you wish.
Might as well be this one. "Need to document what you are explaining
here." Probably mostly in the Admin Guide with a few notes in the
> Any operation will acquire a lock for every single DB page it
> touches. (...)
I don't think that can be quite right. A search which traverses the
database would need an awful lot of locks. Unless for the entries
it acquires and then releases the locks for one entry at a time.
> The more work that an operation needs to do, the more pages
> it will touch, the more locks it will need. (...)
Another item would be entries needed to evaluate access controls, I
>> Sleepycat messages can be scary. I came from the slapadd "wrong dynamic
>> library" or message or whatever it was which the mailinglist says is
>> cured with more locks & lockers, so I increased those and just got
>> another error message (this ITs). So apparently, something still wrong.
> I'm not familiar with that message or advice.
Just reproduced it. Out of locks (so of course configure more), then
"Accessing a corrupted shared library". Will file a separate ITS, it
doesn't sound like slapadd in a clean directory should need 1000+ locks.
>> "Not configured for the locking subsystem" sounded like a permanent
>> problem with the database build, not that it would get "reconfigured"
>> to support locking when needed. Hence this report. Oh well.
> The message said The Environment is not configured for locking. It
> didn't say the BDB library.
Yes, that's what I meant. The database, with its enviroment, I just
built with slapadd.
> Really there's nothing mystical or spooky here, and if you've actually
> read the BDB documentation you'll know what The Environment refers
> to. If you're using back-[bh]db without having read the BDB
> documentation, despite all the recommendations to do so, you deserve
> to be scared.
I've read it.