Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
Michael Ströder writes:
Is that really a problem? How often is "occasionally"?
Don't know, and don't know.
To me 2.5 MB does not sound so much to justify thinking about changing
the client app in such a network- and data-specific way.
OK, good. I've no experience with that kind of search result sizes
myself.
I can only speak of situations where I retrieve the whole directory (up
to 300000 entries) for syncing. But this does not happen very often and
my sync scripts call ldap_result() quite soon and process results as
they come in.
getgrent() with nss_ldap. Others may come later.
Hmm, maybe that's what Volker Lendecke was talking about at LDAPcon 2007
regarding enumeration of groups. See his slides:
http://www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ldapcon2007/slides/ldapcon_lendecke.pdf
Does it block other operations from different apps?
Don't know yet, that's what I was wondering about. Like I said I
imagine it can, if the threads get blocked. We've just multiplied the
server-side sizelimit with 200 to accomodate the change:-(
I guess user-specific limits won't help much.
Ciao, Michael.
