Andrey Ivanov wrote: > Hi, > > > There may be several attributes of interest to you as far as the > memory consumption is concerned > (http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.1/cli/Configuration_Command_File_Reference-Plug_in_Implemented_Server_Functionality_Reference-Database_Plug_in_Attributes.html) > : > nsslapd-dbcachesize > nsslapd-cachememsize for every backend (by default, your data is in > cn=userRoot,cn=ldbm database,cn=plugins,cn=config) > nsslapd-import-cachesize (used only during ldif import) Start with nsslapd-cachememsize - make that as large as possible and minimize nsslapd-dbcachesize > > You can adjust the corresponding values by monitoring the attributes > like currententrycachesize or entrycachehitratio of > cn=monitor,cn=userRoot,cn=ldbm database,cn=plugins,cn=config > (http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.1/cli/Configuration_Command_File_Reference-Plug_in_Implemented_Server_Functionality_Reference-Database_Plug_in_Attributes.html#Configuration_Command_File_Reference-Database_Plug_in_Attributes-Database_Attributes_under_cnmonitor_cnldbm_database_cnplugins_cnconfig) > You can also use the logconv.pl script to examine the access log to see what types of searches are being done and which are not indexed properly. > > > 2009/6/26 Tim Hartmann <hartmann at fas.harvard.edu > <mailto:hartmann at fas.harvard.edu>> > > Hi! > > > I was spending some time today trying to make sure that I was > getting the most bang for my buck today an my replica's and I > notices two items of interest that I was wondering if anyone else > had input on! > > Firstly, after creating a number of indexs, my performance seems > to be really good, the exception that I noticed was "finger" I > noticed that finger takes a couple of seconds to return the data > on RHDS whereas on OpenLDAP, it pops right now in real time! My > first though was that I was doing an un-indexed search, but I > can't for the life of me figure out what I might not be indexing > that I should be! > > The second thing I noticed was that on my servers, which are > RHEL5, running 32bit OS's with the PAE Kernels, RHDS doesn't ever > actually address more then 3 gig of ram! I was looking through the > documentations, and it looks like by raising the "Maximum Cache > Size" I'll be able to allow RHDS to use more of the available > memory.. did I get that right? > > > Anyway, as always thanks in advance for all the help! This list > has been a tremendous resource for an application that keeps on > showing it's value in huge ways! > > > Best, > > Tim > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users at redhat.com <mailto:389-users at redhat.com> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3258 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20090626/517f1704/attachment.bin
