hyc@symas.com writes:

These are backend-specific considerations. Feel free to file an ITS against the slapd-bdb(5) manpage if you wish.

Might as well be this one. "Need to document what you are explaining here." Probably mostly in the Admin Guide with a few notes in the manpage.

Any operation will acquire a lock for every single DB page it touches. (...)

I don't think that can be quite right. A search which traverses the database would need an awful lot of locks. Unless for the entries it acquires and then releases the locks for one entry at a time.

The more work that an operation needs to do, the more pages it will touch, the more locks it will need. (...)

Another item would be entries needed to evaluate access controls, I assume.

...

Sleepycat messages can be scary. I came from the slapadd "wrong dynamic library" or message or whatever it was which the mailinglist says is cured with more locks & lockers, so I increased those and just got another error message (this ITs). So apparently, something still wrong.

I'm not familiar with that message or advice.

Just reproduced it. Out of locks (so of course configure more), then "Accessing a corrupted shared library". Will file a separate ITS, it doesn't sound like slapadd in a clean directory should need 1000+ locks. http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200607/msg00305.html

...

"Not configured for the locking subsystem" sounded like a permanent problem with the database build, not that it would get "reconfigured" to support locking when needed. Hence this report. Oh well.

The message said The Environment is not configured for locking. It didn't say the BDB library.

Yes, that's what I meant. The database, with its enviroment, I just built with slapadd.

Really there's nothing mystical or spooky here, and if you've actually read the BDB documentation you'll know what The Environment refers to. If you're using back-[bh]db without having read the BDB documentation, despite all the recommendations to do so, you deserve to be scared.

I've read it.