On 4/27/06, matthew sporleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/27/06, Quanah Gibson-Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quoting matthew sporleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > 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? :) > > > > Umm.. no. But I'm recompiling now. > Maybe this is the culprit: > http://dev.sleepycat.com/resources/faq_show.html?id=114 >
Also, my initial read testing showed equal performance for shm vs non-sham (mmap?). And my write test didn't seem to be working at all, but that could be something with how I tried to setup slamd. I will pursue this issue a little more, and see if I can come up with an ITS. (I'll probably just stick with non-shm, though) Can I move away from shm without reimporting my database? Something like delete that config and then db_recover/restart openldap? (possibly delete my log.* and __db*)
