Re: Max number of slurpds?

["Medievalist" <ldap@hbcs.org>]

Those are *exactly* the kinds of things I'm wondering about!

If there aren't any "rules of thumb", so to speak, I wonder if there is some 
preferred metric one might use to figure out if one is approaching some kind of 
replica armageddon, like memory or CPU utilization?

As for why anyone would want 27+ replicas: I don't like to beat on the network 
for queries if I can do them on loopback.  Replica synchronization is more 
bandwidth-efficient than forcing all queries onto the wire (at least in my 
shop; keeping in mind that I have lots of servers and several remote sites).

I do the same thing with DNS.  I've had slave nameservers on all my hosts for 
many, many years.  The master nameservers do nothing but sync slaves.  Used to 
do the same thing with Novell's NDS, too.

--Charlie


On 6 Mar 2004 at 16:10, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> fre, 05.03.2004 kl. 20.10 skrev Medievalist:
> 
> > Does anyone know what the practical limitations are on the number of slurpds a 
> > linux system can run simultaneously?
> 
> Would that depend on the Linux system? I'm running RedHat RHEL3 on this
> particular system, with kernel.org kernel 2.6.2. Would that make a
> difference? Would the fact that I'm running Openldap 2.2.6 make a
> difference? Would the RAM and disk configuration make a difference?
> Etc.?
> 
> --Tonni
> 
> P.s. Why would anyone want to configure and use 27+ replicas? Enterprise
> across the world? I'm sure Novell's eDirectory can do it.
>