[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: multiple subordinates and shm_key - not a good idea
Quoting matthew sporleder <msporleder@gmail.com>:
> > 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...
> >
> > --Quanah
>
> 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+ ;)
Ah, fun.
As a side note, I assume you patched BDB 4.4.20 with the two patches
released by sleepycat, right? :)
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITS/Shared Application Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html