Re: clarifications on cachesize, preferred db, et. al. from admin guide

[Tim Mooney <Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu>]

In regard to: Re: clarifications on cachesize, preferred db, et. al. from...:

> --On Thursday, April 07, 2011 6:46 PM -0500 Tim Mooney <Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu> 
> wrote:
>
> > - Admin Guide, section 21.4.1.1.  The tuning chapter is a godsend and
>
> [snip]
>
> > Every single one of my index .bdb files is of type Btree, though, not
> > Hash.  Is that section of the docs outdated, and all indexed attributes
> > are now in Btree databases (for back-bdb and presumably back-hdb), or am
> > I fundamentally misunderstanding what the index-related cache calculations
> > are saying?
>
> They are btrees.  You can find this is corrected in the FAQ:

Thanks for all the clarifications.  With the information you've provided,
I'll try get ITS's with patches filed against the documentation.

> > If you agree that it would be useful to explicitly list which backends
> > would block the use of slapd-config and someone can provide me with the
> > list of blockers, I would be happy to file an ITS and provide a patch to
> > the current docs to spell things out.  I personally think it will help
> > adoption of slapd-config.
>
> Check against OpenLDAP 2.4.25.  I believe nearly all backends and overlays 
> support slapd-config now.

I'm using 2.4.25, but short of trying every one of the official and
contrib overlays one by one, I don't know of any way to find out which
ones don't support slapd-config.  That's why I was asking: I was hoping
someone knew what the holdouts were, or knew where it was documented.

> > - man page for slapd.backends(5).  The man page entry states that
> > bdb is the preferred backend.  I've seen enough hints and comments on
> > the mailing list to suggest that it will eventually be supplanted by hdb.
> > How soon is that going to happen (2.5?), and is it worth mentioning that
> > hdb is as good as bdb now and will be the new preferred backend soon?
> > Again, I'll submit the ITS with the doc patch if it's worth making that
> > assertion in the docs now.
>
> It was done with OpenLDAP 2.4.  The man page needs updating.

I'll include a patch for that.

> > - Admin Guide, chapter 21.  The tuning chapter doesn't mention the
> > potential benefits of using sysv shared memory vs. mmap'ed files on
> > some platforms.  Should it?  Same offer for documentation patch applies,
> > though I expect this one will need more feedback from the experts.
>
> Do you mean the shared memory keys, or something else?

The shared memory keys.

Tim
--
Tim Mooney                                             Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure                  701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building                             701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164