--On Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:32 AM +0900 Mark Mcdonald mmcdonald@staff.iinet.net.au wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Buchan Milne [mailto:bgmilne@staff.telkomsa.net] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 12:17 AM
Is there any reason you didn't include BDB as well ?
We have a reasonably high write component in our system so we thought we'd go straight for HDB. From my fairly limited reading, I get the impression that HDB >= BDB, although I've seen nothing criticising HDB comparative to BDB. Is it something we should also consider? For what reasons?
BDB and HDB are generally equivalent in search rates, IIRC. I haven't done a direct comparison in a while though. However, I switched to using HDB on my servers and they've been quite responsive.
How many entries in the database, or how large is it (du *.bdb) ?
1.3GB, 800k entries in one database. No glue or other overlays.
Really, the important part is, how large is id2entry. You generally want your DB_CONFIG database cachesize to be id2entry + at least 10% for growth. For loading the database via slapadd, you want the size of *.bdb. So I generally just set it to the latter number.
I think you need (more?) idlcache, configured in slapd.conf inside the database. And, if you don't have any, you also need a cachesize configured (in the same place). See the man page for slapd-hdb (or slapd-bdb). IIRC the guideline for idlcache on hdb is approx three times the cachesize (which you will have to decide on).
Bingo! Adding the idlcachesize made a world of difference, thanks! I didn't check that man page so never realised the index caching config directive had changed. I've followed the 3x rule and it's super-speedy now.
Yeah, the man pages are important. :)
--Quanah
-- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Developer ITS/Shared Application Services Stanford University GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html