Hi Christian, On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:57:48PM +0900, Christian Balzer wrote: > I will monitor this over the weekend and see if the problem persists, > goes away or (heavens forbid) mutates. Thanks.
> Not matter the outcome of this though, the severity of this bug report
> remains the same. Right now anybody with a working sarge or woody
> LDAP installation will find themselves encountering mysterious
> heisenbugs when upgrading to 2.2.23-1 (at the very least when using
> LDBM). So unless the underlying problem can be fixed or the update
> somehow enforces (it didn't even suggest it) BDB usage (always
> assuming this actually fixes what I'm seeing here) we have a major
> show stopper.
Fully agreed.
> This sure helps (helped in my case) with a fresh load. I still dread to
> see BDB performance in case I have something modifying or adding a large
> number of entries in normal (ldapmodify) operation.
> It tends to be about 2 times slower than LDBM with that.
Have you seen the comments about DB_CONFIG? For a directory as big as
yours it should really make a difference.
Greetings
Torsten
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
