Re: Corrupt index files

["Isaac Cruz Ballesteros" <icruz@sgi.es>]

> OpenLDAP 2.1 is faster than 2.0 in several areas. 2.1.3 with back-ldbm is
> much faster than 2.0.25 with back-ldbm, even with identical BDB 4 behind
> them. My profiles of 2.0.25 vs 2.1.3 (identically configured) with the same
> mix of read/search/add/delete operations shows 2.1 to be about 21% faster
> overall, with searches 30% faster, adds 25% faster, and deletes 23% faster.
> Most of the speedup is due to optimizations in the 2.1 front end, but even in
> the ldbm-specific code there is a speed difference: search 36%, add 7%,
> delete 14%.

Is it also faster using slapadd? I have tried BDB 4 with 2.0.25 (ldbm backend)
versus 2.1.3 (bdb backend), and in my experience, using TXN_NOSYNC and 500 MB of
cache, 2.1.3 is much slower due to log writing (after an hour or so, 90+% of cpu
time is iowait, while slapadd only gets about 7-8%).

Also, unless there's a very good reason, I wouldn't want to use 2.1.3 because of
idl.c and "present index" bugs, as I'm reluctant to use CVS code in a production
environment

Thanks for all,
Isaac