Antw: Re: OpenLDAP 2.5 plans and community engagement

["Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>]

>>> Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com> schrieb am 30.07.2019 um 16:42 in
Nachricht <2205c354-382e-bcce-3c8f-f3d852752e2d@stroeder.com>:
> 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

Actually this just is the impression I got reading this list. I read a lot
about running out of memory, having rebuild the databases as they grow out of
bounds, having a database size three time the data size, lock-ups, and all the
stuff.
I'm not spreading FUD. I'm just worried from what I read here.

> that back-mdb consumes more resources than back-hdb then present
> seriously worked out test results.
> 
> Ciao, Michael.