[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: clarifications on cachesize, preferred db, et. al. from admin guide
In regard to: Re: clarifications on cachesize, preferred db, et. al. from...:
--On Thursday, April 07, 2011 6:46 PM -0500 Tim Mooney <Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu>
- Admin Guide, section 188.8.131.52. The tuning chapter is a godsend and
Every single one of my index .bdb files is of type Btree, though, not
Hash. Is that section of the docs outdated, and all indexed attributes
are now in Btree databases (for back-bdb and presumably back-hdb), or am
I fundamentally misunderstanding what the index-related cache calculations
They are btrees. You can find this is corrected in the FAQ:
Thanks for all the clarifications. With the information you've provided,
I'll try get ITS's with patches filed against the documentation.
If you agree that it would be useful to explicitly list which backends
would block the use of slapd-config and someone can provide me with the
list of blockers, I would be happy to file an ITS and provide a patch to
the current docs to spell things out. I personally think it will help
adoption of slapd-config.
Check against OpenLDAP 2.4.25. I believe nearly all backends and overlays
support slapd-config now.
I'm using 2.4.25, but short of trying every one of the official and
contrib overlays one by one, I don't know of any way to find out which
ones don't support slapd-config. That's why I was asking: I was hoping
someone knew what the holdouts were, or knew where it was documented.
- man page for slapd.backends(5). The man page entry states that
bdb is the preferred backend. I've seen enough hints and comments on
the mailing list to suggest that it will eventually be supplanted by hdb.
How soon is that going to happen (2.5?), and is it worth mentioning that
hdb is as good as bdb now and will be the new preferred backend soon?
Again, I'll submit the ITS with the doc patch if it's worth making that
assertion in the docs now.
It was done with OpenLDAP 2.4. The man page needs updating.
I'll include a patch for that.
- Admin Guide, chapter 21. The tuning chapter doesn't mention the
potential benefits of using sysv shared memory vs. mmap'ed files on
some platforms. Should it? Same offer for documentation patch applies,
though I expect this one will need more feedback from the experts.
Do you mean the shared memory keys, or something else?
The shared memory keys.
Tim Mooney Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building 701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164