On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 21:38, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Monday, February 21, 2005 8:44 PM -0500 Samuel Tran <stran@amnh.org> > wrote: > > >> If you have 4,000 entries, why would you try and cache 100,000? You're > >> never going to fill that. I also don't see any idlcachesize setting > >> here. > >> > > > > Should I set cachesize to the size of my directory, ie 4,000 ? > > Ok. I forgot idlcachesize. I am not sure what size I should use here. > > For the cachesize, I'd do your size + a few for growth? ;) Maybe 4400 or > something. > > The idlcachesize is explained here: > > <http://www.stanford.edu/services/directory/openldap/configuration/slapd-conf-replica.html> > > Basically it is a cache of the result set for a given query, so it will > fill up with the most commonly requested searches. > > > >> Also, is the 350 queries/second from a single process doing the query, > >> or multiple processes? A single process querying will never give you > >> the full results of the servers performance. > >> > > > > No each query is done by a single process. > > Ah, then the result you are seeing isn't really a mark of how well the > server performs overall then. ;) In fact, the rate in this case could be > limited by how fast they querying process can perform, and not the server. > ;) > Quanah, After re-installing OL 2.2.23 with BDB 4.2.52 (+ patches) and fine tuning my config I was able to reach more than 1,000 queries/sec. on a single server (one client querying). Thanks for your help. Sam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part