--On Thursday, April 07, 2011 6:46 PM -0500 Tim Mooney Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu wrote:
- Admin Guide, section 21.4.1.1. The tuning chapter is a godsend and
[snip]
Every single one of my index .bdb files is of type Btree, though, not Hash. Is that section of the docs outdated, and all indexed attributes are now in Btree databases (for back-bdb and presumably back-hdb), or am I fundamentally misunderstanding what the index-related cache calculations are saying?
They are btrees. You can find this is corrected in the FAQ:
http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/1075.html
Specifically where it says:
Also, in OpenLDAP 2.2 onward, all of the indexes use B-trees, there are no more Hash database files. So just use the B-tree information above and ignore this Hash discussion.
If you agree that it would be useful to explicitly list which backends would block the use of slapd-config and someone can provide me with the list of blockers, I would be happy to file an ITS and provide a patch to the current docs to spell things out. I personally think it will help adoption of slapd-config.
Check against OpenLDAP 2.4.25. I believe nearly all backends and overlays support slapd-config now.
- man page for slapd.backends(5). The man page entry states that
bdb is the preferred backend. I've seen enough hints and comments on the mailing list to suggest that it will eventually be supplanted by hdb. How soon is that going to happen (2.5?), and is it worth mentioning that hdb is as good as bdb now and will be the new preferred backend soon? Again, I'll submit the ITS with the doc patch if it's worth making that assertion in the docs now.
It was done with OpenLDAP 2.4. The man page needs updating.
- Admin Guide, chapter 21. The tuning chapter doesn't mention the
potential benefits of using an alternate memory allocator on Linux, as Quanah clued me in to on the mailing list last month. Should it? If people feel it would be worthwhile to mention, I would be happy to write the first draft and supply the patch in an ITS.
Probably. It doesn't just apply to Linux. It applies to all *nix systems.
- Admin Guide, chapter 21. The tuning chapter doesn't mention the
potential benefits of using sysv shared memory vs. mmap'ed files on some platforms. Should it? Same offer for documentation patch applies, though I expect this one will need more feedback from the experts.
Do you mean the shared memory keys, or something else?
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration