[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Index Generation Failed error

To: Suhel Momin <suhelmomin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Index Generation Failed error
From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:51:39 -0700
Cc: openldap-software@openldap.org
In-reply-to: <7f1cc6540710040604q30d4021dxa4de146e140572e1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7f1cc6540710030629s1a971105w35e7a01207fb7003@mail.gmail.com> <4703C3BF.6070302@sys-net.it> <4703E864.4080008@symas.com> <7f1cc6540710040602l22c3a86btba46bc58e6d361c4@mail.gmail.com> <7f1cc6540710040604q30d4021dxa4de146e140572e1@mail.gmail.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.9a8pre) Gecko/2007091708 SeaMonkey/2.0a1pre

Suhel Momin wrote:

On 10/4/07, *Howard Chu* < hyc@symas.com <mailto:hyc@symas.com>> wrote:
    The solution of course is to use a larger buffer.

I tried to make the value of BDB_IDL_LOGN to be 20 instead of 16. This changes the value of BDB_IDL_DB_MAX. It looks like this change has solved my problem of "index generation failed" while keeping logs in memory.

Is this the right way to go about or should I still go with increasing the buffer size for logs??


What part of my previous post was unclear to you?

--
  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.  http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun        http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP     http://www.openldap.org/project/

References:
- Index Generation Failed error
  - From: "Suhel Momin" <suhelmomin@gmail.com>
- Re: Index Generation Failed error
  - From: Pierangelo Masarati <ando@sys-net.it>
- Re: Index Generation Failed error
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Re: Index Generation Failed error
  - From: "Suhel Momin" <suhelmomin@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: some questions about syncrepl
Next by Date: Re: some questions about syncrepl
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread