[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Size limitation on LDBM ?

Hi Wes,
	Do you mind if I ask what kind of _hardware_ you're running OpenLDAP
on?  (and OS?)  It's such a bear spec'ing hardware for stuff like this.

David L. Parsley
Network Administrator
Roanoke College

wesley.craig@umich.edu wrote:
> > From:    Wayne Browne <wbrowne@dynamite.com.au>
> > To:      openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
> > I have a query about using Berkeley DB 2.7.7.
> >
> > Is there an upper limit on the number of objects that can be stored in a
> > single LDBM ? I assume you can keep pumping in objects till the database
> > hits the 256 terabytes limit for the Berkeley DB?
> >
> > Is there a reference site for a LARGE OpenLDAP system?
> >
> > I am looking at a system which will store some 20,000 user records, and
> > user groups,  probable in a single people sub-org. Potentially, I would
> > like to store document information in the same LDBM, but I could feasible
> > locate this in a separate LDBM without much hassle...
> The University of Michigan is in the process of migrating to OpenLDAP.
> We're currently running one X.500 master, three X.500 slaves, and two
> OpenLDAP slaves.  All umich.edu email is routed using an OpenLDAP
> server.  Before the end of the year, we'll be running no X.500 servers
> at all.
> Our database currently stores some 100,000 user entries and an
> additional 120,000 group entries.  Almost all groups are in the "User
> Groups" sub-org.  The users are currently organized according to the
> University reporting structure, but we're planning to move the users to
> a single separate sub-org, so user affiliations can be represented
> through multiple "ou" attributes.
> We used to store document information in the directory as well, but it
> no longer seems to be the right place -- we put that information there
> when gopher was popular, before http, before search engines.
> In any case, the LDIF for this is about 240M, and the full database
> with 20 indices is under 700M.
> :wes