Re: multiple subordinates and shm_key - not a good idea

["matthew sporleder" <msporleder@gmail.com>]

On 4/27/06, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Quoting matthew sporleder <msporleder@gmail.com>:
>
> > > On my systems, at least, OpenLDAP does handle this correctly.  However,
> > I am
> > > only using a single shared memory segment, and I'm using BDB 4.2.52.
> > >
> > > Based off the configuration you sent in, I'm not exactly clear why you
> > set
> > > up so many subordinate databases instead of just using a single
> > database.
> > > Certainly your performance would improve by using a single database,
> > and
> > > you'd get better resource usage...
> > >
> > > --Quanah
> >
> > I'll compile 4.2.52 and retry some testing soon.  I was having trouble
> > finding sleepycat docs for 4.2.52 to see if the db_open/shm api had
> > changed between them.
> >
> > The main reason for having multiple subordinates is replication, but
> > it's also because the three main branches are used by different
> > applications so they require different index management, utilize
> > different schemas, etc. (these four definitions are a consolidation
> > from 140+ ;)
>
> Ah, fun.
>
> As a side note, I assume you patched BDB 4.4.20 with the two patches
> released by sleepycat, right? :)
>

Umm.. no.  But I'm recompiling now.
Maybe this is the culprit:
http://dev.sleepycat.com/resources/faq_show.html?id=114