Buchan, Thank you very much ! I don't see how I could have missed the idlcachesize.. After setting it to 3x the cachesize (2nd and later) searches take .005s to complete :-)
I see I have a lot of reading to do still about how to set sane defaults for these options. Thanks again, Leon On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 15:43 +0200, Buchan Milne wrote: > On 7/31/07, Leon de Rooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > After a period of testing I upgraded our LDAP servers from 2.1.30 to > > 2.3.37. Many things were done, changed replication from slurpd to > > syncrepl, changed backend from ldbm to hdb, even changed the structure > > of the tree a bit, almost everything works great :) > > > > Except some searches are slower ! > > > > I have around 160K dn's with around 3.2M attrs in a server with 4G > > memory with a tree looking like this (simplified): > > > > I have indexed o, ou and namespace with pres and eq (and mail with pres, > > eq and sub), so I don't see a problem there. I still have to look a bit > > more into DB_CONFIG tuning, but still, is it normal behaviour of > > OpenLDAP 2.3.37 with hdb backend that searches in a subtree are slower > > than in the base of the tree ? > > With a relatively large database, tuning can have quite a big impact > on behaviour (if the directory is busy). You really need to provide > information on what tuning you have done (both in DB_CONFIG, and with > cachesize and idlcachesize for this database in slapd.conf). You most > likely need at least 100MB cachesize set in DB_CONFIG ... and hdb > likes at least 3* idlcachesize as (entry) cachesize (as discussed in > the slapd-hdb man page). > > Regards, > Buchan
