In regard to: Re: clarifications on cachesize, preferred db, et. al. from...:
--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 Is that section of the docs outdated, and all indexed attributes are now in Btree databases (for back-bdb and presumably back-hdb), or am I fundamentally misunderstanding what the index-related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:
Thanks for all the clarifications. With the information you've provided, I'll try get ITS's with patches filed against the documentation.
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.
I'm using 2.4.25, but short of trying every one of the official and contrib overlays one by one, I don't know of any way to find out which ones don't support slapd-config. That's why I was asking: I was hoping someone knew what the holdouts were, or knew where it was documented.
- 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.
I'll include a patch for that.
- 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?
The shared memory keys.
Tim