Re: "descriptor table size" errors?

[Dustin Puryear <dustin@puryear-it.com>]

Funny, I was just discussing OpenLDAP 2.2 vs. 2.3. 2.2 is funky compared
to 2.3, so enjoy the upgrade. What always gets me is that so many
distributions (major distros) use 2.2 or older versions, so that means
2.2 gets used in a lot of places.

--
Puryear IT, LLC
Identity Management, Directory Services, Systems Integration
Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 * http://www.puryear-it.com

"Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers"
  http://www.puryear-it.com/pubs/linux-unix-best-practices


Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade wrote:
> Tony Earnshaw wrote:
>> Hmmm ... perhaps a better site for Red Hat and Fedora people for OL
>> 2.3 is:
>>
>> http://anorien.warwick.ac.uk/mirrors/buchan/openldap/
> 
> Thanks everyone for the help.
> 
> I've installed the packages from the yum repository listed above, and
> migrated the directory, and everything seems to have survived the night.
> 
> Near as I can figure, the 2.2.x version from RH was stuffing its head in
> the sand when getting on the order of a couple thousand queries at once
> when various services would be restarted across all our RH servers all
> at the same time, thanks to cron.daily.  The servers would then accept
> new connections, but never do anything (i.e., stall them out), which
> meant the clients had no obvious error to trigger a failover to another
> server, but they also never got any useful data.
> 
> In addition to upgrading to the 2.3 server and setting the file limit to
> 4096, we also staggered the timing of cron.daily on about half of our
> systems, just to be safe.
> 
> Gregory
>