ok __dd.xxx files are memory mapped files, then which is the file(s) that contains the database ? I suspect id2entry.bdb, but why on the master the size in KB is: *195412 id2entry.bdb* and on the slave *32 id2entry.bdb*

Thanks .

Le 21/05/2012 10:46, Maucci, Cyrille a écrit :

...

...

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

---

*From:* openldap-technical-bounces@OpenLDAP.org [mailto:openldap-technical-bounces@OpenLDAP.org] *On Behalf Of *jehan procaccia *Sent:* Monday, May 21, 2012 10:22 AM *To:* openldap-technical@openldap.org *Subject:* size of bdb database, master vs replica

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 .

--On Monday, May 21, 2012 3:15 PM +0200 jehan procaccia jehan.procaccia@it-sudparis.eu wrote:

ok __dd.xxx files are memory mapped files, then which is the file(s) that contains the database ? I suspect id2entry.bdb, but why on the master the size in KB is: 195412 id2entry.bdb and on the slave 32 id2entry.bdb

It doesn't look to me like your replica is replicating at all. Have you done a slapcat of the two and verified they are identical?

--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