[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: multiple subordinates and shm_key - not a good idea
On 4/27/06, Quanah Gibson-Mount <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Quoting matthew sporleder <email@example.com>:
> > So my questions so far:
> > So is this a bug because I'm using bdb4.4.20?
> Possibly. I note that the recommended version of BDB remains at
> 4.2.52+patches. 4.4.20+ has looked promissing so far.
> > Should I just add db_recover to my init script? I thought openldap
> > 2.3 was supposed to handle that. (init.c does mention recover in the
> > shm section, so I'm at a bit of a loss)
> On my systems, at least, OpenLDAP does handle this correctly. However, I am
> only using a single shared memory segment, and I'm using BDB 4.2.52.
> Based off the configuration you sent in, I'm not exactly clear why you set
> up so many subordinate databases instead of just using a single database.
> Certainly your performance would improve by using a single database, and
> you'd get better resource usage...
I'll compile 4.2.52 and retry some testing soon. I was having trouble
finding sleepycat docs for 4.2.52 to see if the db_open/shm api had
changed between them.
The main reason for having multiple subordinates is replication, but
it's also because the three main branches are used by different
applications so they require different index management, utilize
different schemas, etc. (these four definitions are a consolidation
from 140+ ;)