On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 14:50 -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > But basically, have you read over the information on understanding your > system requirements? I.e., how to properly tune DB_CONFIG and slapd.conf?
I've read the OpenLDAP performance tuning stuff at <http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/tuning.html#Performance%20Factors>, but I do not yet have access to the boxes in question so I can't say anything about the specifics of the configuration, etc.... > Updates -> master is always recommended. You can set up multi-master with > 2.4, but it will be slower than a single master scenario. The general best > practice for fail over is to have a primary master that receives writes, > and a secondary master that is getting the updates, and will take over via > fail-over mechanisms if the primary goes down, becoming the new primary. Good to know. Do you have any sense for the kinds of performance differences you'd typically see in a multi-master versus master/backup master scenario? If it's just a typical 10% performance hit, we might prefer to go with a multi-master configuration anyway (well, once we upgrade to 2.4.something), but if it's considerably larger then we might want to think again. > RAM is probably the most important, but you also will want fast disks, > proper partitioning of the logs separate from the database and logs, and I > recommend a non-journaling filesystem. 2 or more cores is also useful. > Unfortunately I don't really see enough information from your end (yet) to > really say much beyond that. Also good to know. I'm assuming they've already done at least most of this stuff, but I'll have to wait until I can get on the boxes and start looking around to be sure. > On the SunFire x4100 servers I used to have, I could easily obtain some > 23,000+ reads/second with OpenLDAP 2.3 on a single server. But that's reads only, right? Do you have any sense for what kind of performance you might see in a balanced 50/50 or even a write-heavy environment? > > How about the ultimate maximum distribution scenario, where you put an > > LDAP slave on virtually every major LDAP client machine? > > Seems like major overkill to me, unless you are getting hundreds of > thousands of reads/second. At this stage, I'm not making any assumptions. ;-) -- Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sr. System Administrator, UT Austin ITS-Unix COM 24 | 5-9342
