On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:54:10 -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --On Thursday, October 02, 2008 10:50 PM +0200 Pavlos Parissis > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> <http://www.openldap.org/its/index.cgi/?findid=5721> > >> > > > > Well, when I sent the mail this ITS wasn't there. > > > > But, how long is that "temporarily" ? > > In my case it was 32000 entries more than the limit. > > As long as the conditions noted in ITS#5721 apply, I'd think. > > > Isn't it too dangerous to have that "termporarily" period? > > Dangerous how? Previous releases had no upper limit, and although that > caused more memory usage, it wasn't dangerous... In our test we saw that when the dnchache was way too above the limit the system starting to swap a lot. We have quite long DNs , but I don't know the actual size. BTW, what is the actual size that is being allocated in the memory for each entry in dncache? I know that the entries in entry cache are about twice as large as they are on disk, but I don't know about the dncache entries. Cheers, Pavlos
