Yes, that would significantly increase memory usage. I have only ever done the *second* modification (BDB_IDL_LOGN) to fix the IDL issues. I've run that way for years.How much have you increased the BDB_IDL_LOGN -> 2^17 or more, would be interesting for me, because we are nearly reach this size too.Try dropping the modification to LDAP_PVT_THREAD_STACK_SIZE. It has never been necessary for any of my customers, many of whom have DBs with 6 to 10 million entries.Ok, thanks, I'll do this and check.
Currently, just to 17.quanah@zre-ldap001:~/p4/zimbra/HELIX/ThirdParty/openldap/patches$ cat index-slot-increase.patch --- openldap-2.4.23/servers/slapd/back-bdb/idl.h.orig 2011-02-17 16:32:02.598593211 -0800 +++ openldap-2.4.23/servers/slapd/back-bdb/idl.h 2011-02-17 16:32:08.937757993 -0800
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ /* IDL sizes - likely should be even bigger * limiting factors: sizeof(ID), thread stack size */-#define BDB_IDL_LOGN 16 /* DB_SIZE is 2^16, UM_SIZE is 2^17 */ +#define BDB_IDL_LOGN 17 /* DB_SIZE is 2^16, UM_SIZE is 2^17 */
#define BDB_IDL_DB_SIZE (1<<BDB_IDL_LOGN) #define BDB_IDL_UM_SIZE (1<<(BDB_IDL_LOGN+1)) #define BDB_IDL_UM_SIZEOF (BDB_IDL_UM_SIZE * sizeof(ID))I would note that there is code in OpenLDAP master to change indices to 64-bit. However, it requires a database reload to implement it.
--Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration