>> but these are shared memory and doesn't matter I suppose
!?
No. Those are memory mapped files, not shared
memory.
IMHO, you should use shared memory (shm_key) and not memory
mapped files. You'll get better performance.
++Cyrille
hello
I use syncrepl between my master and replicas
I am
surprise with the apparent size of my database (~4000 people entries with
jpegphotos of ~10KB each)
on the master I have
# du -sk *.bdb | sort
-n
172 gidNumber.bdb
188
uidNumber.bdb
332 memberUid.bdb
772
ou.bdb
812 modifyTimestamp.bdb
1020
givenName.bdb
1204 uid.bdb
1368
dn2id.bdb
1620 sn.bdb
1908
IntEPersInetServ.bdb
2068
objectClass.bdb
2804
eduPersonOrgUnitDN.bdb
2828
eduPersonPrimaryOrgUnitDN.bdb
3064
cn.bdb
3368 schacUserStatus.bdb
6784
mail.bdb
195412 id2entry.bdb
Plus BDB
# du -sk __db* | sort -n
12
__db.001
12 __db.006
464
__db.005
548 __db.004
67540
__db.002
205072 __db.003
but these are shared memory
and doesn't matter I suppose !?
On the replica I have
# du -sk
*.bdb | sort -n
8 cn.bdb
8
dn2id.bdb
8 eduPersonOrgUnitDN.bdb
8
eduPersonPrimaryOrgUnitDN.bdb
8
entryCSN.bdb
8 entryUUID.bdb
8
gidNumber.bdb
8 givenName.bdb
8
IntEPersInetServ.bdb
8 mail.bdb
8
memberUid.bdb
8 modifyTimestamp.bdb
8
objectClass.bdb
8 ou.bdb
8
schacUserStatus.bdb
8 sn.bdb
8
uid.bdb
8 uidNumber.bdb
32
id2entry.bdb
# du -sk __* | sort -n 12
__db.001
12 __db.006
380
__db.005
740 __db.004
7060
__db.002
53860 __db.003
So the size of the file are
very different, why ?
4000 objects with at least 3000 jpegphoto of 10K
each seems to fit in a 32K id2entry.bdb, but why then on the master it is at
195412K id2entry.bdb !?
Thanks .