Ok, I have been running 2.4.32 for some time with no issues. Yesterday, 2 different servers (both part of a 4-way MMR) produced an "index add failure" and an "index delete failure". I went back over the bdb DB_CONFIG Settings (listed below) and everything looks nominal to me. Would it just make more sense to switch from bdb to mdb instead of troubleshooting these "random" errors too much? I also noticed that the number of "deadlocks" corresponds to the number of errors that were produced. Is there correlation there?

Thanks! 578 Last allocated locker ID 0x7fffffff Current maximum unused locker ID 9 Number of lock modes 3000 Maximum number of locks possible 1500 Maximum number of lockers possible 1500 Maximum number of lock objects possible 1 Number of lock object partitions 15 Number of current locks 1029 Maximum number of locks at any one time 17 Maximum number of locks in any one bucket 0 Maximum number of locks stolen by for an empty partition 0 Maximum number of locks stolen for any one partition 123 Number of current lockers 224 Maximum number of lockers at any one time 15 Number of current lock objects 526 Maximum number of lock objects at any one time 5 Maximum number of lock objects in any one bucket 0 Maximum number of objects stolen by for an empty partition 0 Maximum number of objects stolen for any one partition 3581M Total number of locks requested (3581768929) 3581M Total number of locks released (3581768869) 0 Total number of locks upgraded 77 Total number of locks downgraded 7041 Lock requests not available due to conflicts, for which we waited 43 Lock requests not available due to conflicts, for which we did not wait 2 Number of deadlocks 0 Lock timeout value 0 Number of locks that have timed out 0 Transaction timeout value 0 Number of transactions that have timed out 1MB 392KB The size of the lock region 0 The number of partition locks that required waiting (0%) 0 The maximum number of times any partition lock was waited for (0%) 0 The number of object queue operations that required waiting (0%) 577 The number of locker allocations that required waiting (0%) 32148 The number of region locks that required waiting (0%) 5 Maximum hash bucket length On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)zimbra.com <mailto:quanah@zimbra.com>> wrote: --On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:32 AM -0400 Kyle Smith <alacer.cogitatus(a)gmail.com <mailto:alacer.cogitatus@gmail.com>> wrote: Quanah, Thanks for the info, I have confirmed I'm hitting the lock maxes of 1000. And I will be upgrading to 2.4.32. I was wondering, what steps should be done to have the changes in DB_CONFIG take effect? stop slapd make changes to DB_CONFIG db_recover start slapd Will this also auto remove the log.* files? ( I plan on setting this: "set_flags DB_LOG_AUTOREMOVE" in DB_CONFIG) If you have checkpointing set in slapd.conf/cn=config, it should, yes. --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

One last question. For now anyways. I am testing the procedure to convert from hdb to mdb using slapcat/add. Should a slapindex be done as well? When I tried it, I got this error. Thanks in advance! 50a17983 => mdb_idl_insert_keys: c_put id failed: MDB_MAP_FULL: Environment mapsize limit reached (-30792) 50a17983 => mdb_tool_entry_reindex: txn_aborted! err=80

>>>> "quanah" == Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)zimbra.com&gt; writes:

--On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:38 PM -0500 "Allan E. Johannesen" <aej(a)WPI.EDU&gt; wrote: > Is there a measure of how "full" a MDB database is? Maybe a "Monitor" > value of some sort? du <file.mdb> I.e., the filesize of mdb grows as it gets data, at least on Linux. This is why I set my maxsize to 80GB. This allows it to grow up to 80GB before running out of room. Even with BDB, which takes substantially more space, I've never had an 80GB DB. One of these days, I plan on writing a monitoring script that compares the max size of the DB with the actual size on disk. I found that OSX acts different -- It actually allocates the entire size of the database on disk, regardless of how much is used. That may be common to all the BSDs.

--On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:25 PM -0800 Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com&gt; wrote: >> I found that OSX acts different -- It actually allocates the entire size >> of the database on disk, regardless of how much is used. That may be >> common to all the BSDs. > > Sounds like whatever filesystem is default on BSDish systems doesn't > support sparse files. > > Anyway, you can use mdb_stat to see what's in the MDB environment. Oh, one additional note about the BSDs... I didn't see that behavior until I enabled writemap. Disabling writemap reverted it to the same behavior as linux, but then of course the advantage of writemap is lost. :P

>>>> "quanah" == Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)zimbra.com&gt; writes:

>>>> "quanah" == Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)zimbra.com&gt; writes:

>>>> "quanah" == Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)zimbra.com&gt; writes:

> > Redhat, too. The DB is the maxsize size. That's why I asked. > > Thanks anyway.