[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Quick practical observation re DBD default configuration
- To: openldap-bugs@OpenLDAP.org
- Subject: Quick practical observation re DBD default configuration
- From: "Richard L. Goerwitz III" <richard@Goerwitz.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 06:24:35 -0600
- In-reply-to: <56268.131.175.154.56.1099390091.squirrel@131.175.154.56>
- Organization: Goerwitz.COM
- References: <00e201c4bca8$f16fa550$9701a8c0@digicertdemo1> <45CB91EA810B8D9CFA084211@cadabra-dsl.stanford.edu> <015a01c4bcb2$1d162e50$9701a8c0@digicertdemo1> <20041028160956.X33003@mippet.ci.com.au> <006301c4c080$f5c23970$9701a8c0@digicertdemo1> <56059.131.175.154.56.1099383668.squirrel@131.175.154.56> <1099387725.31354.8.camel@lea.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk> <56268.131.175.154.56.1099390091.squirrel@131.175.154.56>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040922
This isn't a bug per se, but rather something implementors might
want to note:
When initializing OpenLDAP 2.2.17 with a BDB back end yesterday I
was loading several thousand objects into the database from an LDIF
using ldapadd.
I found that after a certain amount of time, I ran into transient
implementation-defined (80) errors adding objects. When I utilized
the -c option to ldapadd, I found that after a few bombed adds these
errors would generally go away and objects would again go in just
fine. An strace revealed a select() timeout was going on under the
hood.
The debug log showed that ldapadd seemed to be timing out waiting
for a lock to get relased in the buffer cache:
slapd[27850]: bdb(dc=carleton,dc=edu): unable to allocate space
from the buffer cache
I tried setting the buffer cache to 500k and found that doing this
alleviated the problem. In DB_CONFIG, e.g., I used:
set_cachesize 0 524288 0
The reason I post here is that normally one wouldn't expect an LDIF
load to cause all the available cache pages to end up being pinned.
I was also surprised to find the default cache size inadequate to
a task like an LDIF load.
As noted, I worked around the problem in question easily. So this
is not a bug report per se.
I'm just hoping that the core developers will find this information
helpful.
--
Richard Goerwitz richard@Goerwitz.COM
tel: 507 645 7015