On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, richard lucassen wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 06:51:40 -0800
Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote:
>> I wonder whether switching to back-mdb would be a better solution.
> If the machine is 64 bit, yes absolutely. If the machine is 32 bit,
> depends on how large the DB can grow, since there's a 2-3GB limit on
> the address space.
> Also while the main DB file would be 99% read-only, the lock.mdb file
> would not. In an application like this it's a good idea to symlink
> the lock.mdb file to a RAM filesystem/tmpfs.
Let me put things more clear: it is a 32 bit Ubuntu-8.04 (yes I know,
very old) with this version:
There is a master and two slaves. I prefer not to upgrade for some
non-ldap reasons. All config is AFAIK in slapd.conf, there is no slapd.d
directory. The database contains *tens* of entries, when I open the
database with ldapvi I find 93 entries. IOW: this is a very very small
Let me put it this way:
The only files that are regularly altered are these files:
What happens if I symlink these files to a RAMDISK? And what happens
after a reboot or power outage? Do I get a corrupted database?
as others have said before configuring a shm_id would prevent those
files from being generated in the first place as berkeley db locks, cache and such
would then be in sys v shared memory and not in file backed shared memory.
Christian Kratzer CK Software GmbH
Email: ck(a)cksoft.de Wildberger Weg 24/2
Phone: +49 7032 893 997 - 0 D-71126 Gaeufelden
Fax: +49 7032 893 997 - 9 HRB 245288, Amtsgericht Stuttgart
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Kratzer