RE: big directories (more than 1M entries)

["Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
> [mailto:owner-openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Daniel Tiefnig

> I encountered a Problem with that setting.
> In slapd.conf i had "checkpoint 100000 7200" and first it
> seemed to work
> good and as i expected. After writing about 10 log files, db_archive
> showed me 9 old files to remove.
> But at that point ldapadd (running with a big LDIF file)
> suddenly slowed
> down horribly. CPU statistics showed me 30% "system" load,
> "user" load
> was just 3% to 5% anymore. (Whereas usually during population there's
> about 15% "system" and 30% "user".)
> I think this might be due to a bug in the checkpoint feature, 'cause
> from this point db_archive showed me every logfile quite after it
> wasn't needed any more. (Instead of waiting for another 100MB to be
> written, as i expected.) I think slapd was checking whether
> to release
> transaction logs after each write or something like that..

This may also be an AIX-specific problem, it doesn't sound familiar to me.
You can try the db_printlog utility to see what's in the log files. If you
actually see multiple Checkpoint records in close succession, then there's a
Berkeley DB bug that should be reported to Sleepycat.

> >> I vaguely remember someone on the list mentioned a
> possibility to do
> >> this without referrals? With a glue backend or something like
> >> that?
> >
> > See the "subordinate" keyword in slapd.conf(5) and in the
> archives of
> > this mailing list.
>
> Yes, that's it, thanks.
> And I have a question about that too..
> Manpage says, someone should use the same rootdn for each of the
> subordinate backends. I remember having troubles with a setting like
> that, 'cause AFAIK a bind() operation is always done against one
> backend, isn't it? And so if I'm binding with the rootdn of the
> backends, I'll always bind to the first one, and so I'll always be
> anonymous for the other ones.

No. The point of configuring each subordinate with the same rootdn is to
allow a single bind with the rootdn to have root privilege in all of the
subordinates.

  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
  http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
  Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support