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

RE: multiple attribute search with single return slowness

Using Jehan Procaccia's rpm packages is probably a great deal less work than 
trying to get Red Hat's packages to function properly.  I'm speaking as someone 
who has done both, personally.

Besides, the OpenLDAP developers are not supporting 2.0.27, full stop.  Neither 
is Red Hat, despite what your bosses may think.

So what are your choices?  What's *really* the least amount of work?  Searching 
the entire source code of 2.0.27 in order to find answers to your questions, or 
using 2.1.25 and getting answers from the developers?

If your company insists on supported software (and they are not IBM-sized) Red 
Hat is a bad choice for you, unless you are going to get a supplementary 
support contract with a commercial LDAP shop like Symas or PADL.


On 27 Apr 2004 at 14:26, Craig White wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 01:18, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> > --On Tuesday, April 27, 2004 3:28 PM +0900 Blomberg David 
> > <dblomber@Libertec.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I read and put in the cachesize as it was missing but saw no speed up, so
> > > I re-read the man page again and noticed a second "dbcachesize" I set
> > > these under the database portion of the slapd.conf and my speed went up
> > > by 2500% (I am not kidding I do 500 message lookups now in what I could
> > > only do 20 messages in the same amount of time before)  I have seen it in
> > > the man page a ton of times but I was trusting Red Hat to stick to the
> > > defaults (stupid me-this is the 4th major problem I have had on Red Hat
> > > ES 3.0)  Anyway thank You for the help its perfect now.
> > 
> > Don't trust RedHat do do anything. ;)
> > 
> > dbcachesize is a ldbm specific command, and is similar to having things set 
> > up correctly for the DB_CONFIG file in bdb.  As noted previously, ldbm is 
> > generally considered to be deprecated, so you probably want to investigate 
> > using a more modern database backend (and more modern version of openldap 
> > than Redhat ships with).
> ---
> I read this and understand the point but it's simply not worth the
> effort for the 30 user network that I am using it for. It seems odd that
> they should still be supplying 2.0.27 with RH AS 3 (2.1.22 on FC-1) but
> I have absolutely no inclination to fight that fight to get reasonably
> up to date openldap installed on that network.
> Craig