[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Lock is no longer valid / deferring operation
<quote who="Toby Blake">
> <snip>
>
>>> They're typically desktop or lab machines for academics, students,
>>> etc. Hardware-wise they're Dell desktop boxes of a few years old - a
>>> 2.4GHz processor with 512MB of memory is typical. Something I should
>>> have mentioned is that they're running Fedora Core 5, with a few
>>> running FC6.
>>
>> Any chance of moving to one central Directory server on proper
>> hardware, with proper resources?
>>
>> btw, are the desktops replicas of a central master?
>
> Yes, the model is essentially one of a central write-master with all
> clients being replicas (using our own replication technology). We do
> want to think about moving away from this, however, possibly using
> local proxy-caching with a handful of servers replicating from the
> master with syncrepl. It's all still to be investigated properly, but
> there's certainly an incentive for that.
Ok, well you should have really mentioned "using our own replication
technology", and since we have no way of knowing what this is or why you
are using it, we can't possibly help diagnose if this is having an effect
on slapd, other than what we have already discussed.
Why not use an open/rfc'd proven replication technology?
>
>>>> I hope you mean 5, as there are only 5 listed on the Oracle site.
>>>
>>> As Quanah said, there are 6.
>>
>> I still only see 5 at:
>>
>>
>> http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/berkeley-db/db/update/4.2.52/patch.4.2.52.html
>
> Sorry, I meant to include the link in the last message about this. We
> get these patches from Quanah's stanford page...
>
> http://www.stanford.edu/services/directory/openldap/configuration/bdb-build-notes.html
I know that page. So Quanah, where are you getting these insider patches
from! ;-)
>
> Cheers
> Toby
>