[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Multiple Slave LDAP Servers
--On Sunday, August 08, 2004 9:13 AM -0400 Daniel Henninger
Anyway, I've switched to CNAME based load balancing and everything seems
to be fine now.
On a side note, 9 slaves?? Wow. Since you have been running this longer
than us (obviously), did you find soon that you needed this many? Would
buying more powerful machines have made it so you didn't necessarily need
that many or did you need that many regardless? Just trying to get a
feel for future sizing requirements. =)
When Stanford was moving to OpenLDAP, we hit a number of issues around
stability and performance. Initially, we couldn't get more than around 6
queries/second out of OpenLDAP when using SASL/GSSAPI. We had a
requirement of 40 queries/second across a load-balance pool to handle our
mail routing. We had an urgent need to get off of our old directory
servers (Netscape based), so we bought what we knew would handle our
requirements. A lot of the stability you find in OpenLDAP, Cyrus-SASL, and
Heimdal comes from the persistent pounding Stanford did against OpenLDAP,
and the work of Howard Chu from Symas, whom we hired to resolve the
problems we were seeing.
Now, I get 130 queries/second against a single LDAP server, on our test
systems, which are less powerful than our production systems.
So, are we now in a position where we have more capacity than necessary?
Principal Software Developer
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html