--On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:49 PM +0100 Meike Stone
<[email protected]> wrote:
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
