[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: slapd 2.3.19 freezes up
Moving from linux to solaris 10/x86? (sounds like a good idea to me)
What a great opportunity to move to a more supported version of BDB.
On 2/26/06, Krishna Sivaramapuram <krishna@everyone.net> wrote:
> It looks to me that this fix is already in 2.3.19. I do see some
> references to BDB 4.3 having some issues... But the details are very
> sketchy. I'm not sure if people are seeing similar kind of issues...
>
> The other possibility I'm thinking off is a possible bug in the Centos
> OS itself.
>
> If I have to move to Solaris from Centos, I'm not sure if the DB files
> are completely portable... Sleepycat does say that the DB files are all
> portable. If anyone has tried this kind of stuff, I'd like to know about
> their experience.
>
> Currently I'm not sure if any of these solutions will fix the problem.
>
> Krish
>
>
> David Hawes wrote:
>
> >On Sunday 26 February 2006 00:47, Howard Chu wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Krishna Sivaramapuram wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have a pretty serious issue in my environment... I've around 6
> >>>million nodes in my ldap tree... And this server is running on a box
> >>>with the following linux configuration...
> >>>
> >>>Cent0S 4.0 (basically redhat enterprise 4.0)
> >>>upgraded to a 2.6.13.2 smp kernel
> >>>
> >>>We are using Openldap 2.3.19 with BDB 4.3.29.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Try 2.3.20. As noted many times on this list, BDB 4.3 is not recommended.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I have seen similar things in my production environment (4.2.52 + patches).
> >The first time I noticed this all three nodes of a load balanced pool reached
> >this state within 30 minutes after all the servers had been up for
> >approximately 24 hours. It has happened much more sporadically since that
> >time. The server would accept new connections, but nothing would be logged
> >by slapd and no results would be returned.
> >
> >I have been trying to collect more data on this problem to post it, but was
> >wondering if perhaps this was a know issue and is fixed in 2.3.20 (maybe
> >ITS#4385?).
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >dave
> >
> >
>
>