[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: OpenLDAP 2.5 plans and community engagement
- To: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
- Subject: Re: OpenLDAP 2.5 plans and community engagement
- From: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:42:00 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=michael@stroeder.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFbdnRoBCADj0vYA4aRwKJ6AE4mf8oElLgMT/1eLNKpJ2FYBWcwj9d8dTk5/p9b8DRxy S/qQIUUZqt9xRFZwUCm0vFeQMRDeN9xzAKoRzrJifoDOacOjG1lhZTKYvVZGgUT89Ao3QeHh Q7gPzcAKNoueoR2y3FXStOYuRrbk5PlSjVAITjsotgc7PWE9mmVYpeu8a+byK/DBHKUyolOA 1UXYvDa7MbPhMtdNm8qnwtKs1Vsyk1VkErM+5cIe+zTT6WYQcmZMRjCtWGiFTzk9W6Mdlskk WRTKhKNgokTsgcy1ecaCBUZWxv/SyXgD81+rwRi9b8Px+1reg43ayxi8sV7jrI1feybbABEB AAG0J01pY2hhZWwgU3Ryw7ZkZXIgPG1pY2hhZWxAc3Ryb2VkZXIuY29tPokBNwQTAQgAIQUC Vt2dGgIbAwULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRAH3HrjaovJOFpTCACjO773gcmJ KvzjiNpUFl/gANyaJgIq4VbMQ7VthRb1F9X6YbdJ6Z99ntyESjGFCpjofcSomr2vJDpv6ht+ lY33yo20YwsMpqe2OeId0jPybG+FtabKjgBNoAk7iqnBGUvE4t0dz0n1LQVCQR2jxyTKmcNq OYpsRZ3H+6kWwJMuVgsNZglINVZ8JgV5QuLYN5jhYz+pOuFnU11bV6nWREvzZXzebe7g7Zus 6AsWjtJ0lDvgBNzLlF3/eFrVch6Bejs0SvuFseIdZQk+4YU6Rb8xul/jDFXIfo7eTmijO3dV T5AmC1cUi8czncwpgAJnEH8vYv23RoN/aw2gSMCS2huIuQENBFbdnRoBCAC7L1cTVBVZZuM/ yxSUM5CsgGBlTD1Cr7C2ngZFsHSYXVLq6NUB8GZA2iLK96CrwnFw4/Jjz4llOjc50iVRMQKL RyFWOJAMrpPq2ew5T+Uoo524D//dwVbqkFVVuvM8NPiKIDyPGCjP+acM1D8hXwhOXgQ8Iz8Q 3/GRSYjitn9JrkF0ia2nhariznBKVu0LDffxF/hOCx45+QRR2/rYYlshfZMB7nEJX9P+hVfM CSzltz9Z8CldeUbiJvnyrISReR2XBw9oh8JkIUP0BtpIaify9A7EfzOk+W9BUnWe+YwdSUsB fJxOhSv+umyW5GMqZGFu+4oYnkzbe+1LUs1JarCtABEBAAGJAR8EGAEIAAkFAlbdnRoCGwwA CgkQB9x642qLyTjEUgf+JX6Atatl/QKe37yCj1OZYNPd3B0rPLJRF5mEmrADRXLZC9+uFeDS Wxxln040gnR6rjBHrRcvVmlTDiZY26iuL16+V+0/aZ9uyXNQSzk2cwDSiI/8gvr72Y+FN5fh cGXpeNHxHilYc9onzDhxyE76cwzqTKm4q2ULIH2u9IHQ5O86Fv6nHPYhe2fy1bhQapNwi/Xl 3G3i2WNH/w7m+1zWU1IddZOjmXzoxLT1BATwXGa0Tt5RjVb2mM1Wg3Zj6kqFkF2vvKcvrwj0 q0Ap5uyfN5m0uWzQMCMoaV9HQf7f5MkS1lnwBqDgnojjVAieX5uk7olUiRuPKHMfhvXulYP8 AA==
- Cc: openldap-technical@openldap.org
- In-reply-to: <5D400BC7020000A100032937@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
- Openpgp: id=43C8730E84A20E560722806C07DC7AE36A8BC938
- References: <20190724180157.ut3r62pdgiaemjdt@mistotebe.net> <5D39493B020000A100032633@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <20190725091220.o2ikgjeac5a626is@mistotebe.net> <2537EDE10877E990D54B64FF@[192.168.1.39]> <5D3E9776020000A1000327EE@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <4DD781BA4B249F2380158513@[192.168.1.39]> <5D400BC7020000A100032937@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
On 7/30/19 11:20 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> Don't get me wrong: We can make it big (CPUs, RAM, Disks, energy consumption
> ,cooling requirement), but isn't "making it small" more of an art? Today's
> software mostly isn't "using a lot of memory" but rather "wasting a lot of
> memory" IMHO.
lmdb's memory and disk footprint is small. My Æ-DIR development VMs are
really small (~200 MB RAM) and there are various web components running
on the providers.
I even tested this stuff with Raspberry PI model 1.
And it did not consume too much resources.
(Of course SD cards have really slow disk I/O.)
AFAICS there is only one case where back-mdb is significantly slower
than back-hdb: ITS#8875. But this is actively worked on.
So stop spreading FUD about lmdb. If you provide real-world evidence
that back-mdb consumes more resources than back-hdb then present
seriously worked out test results.
Ciao, Michael.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature