Russel,

Your response was exactly what I was hoping to hear.

Thanks,
pwr

On , Russell Beall <beall@usc.edu> wrote:
> Our production servers (three replicants) are equipped with 128GB. We started maxing out the 64G chips that used to be in there and had to upgrade. This is for a similarly sized id2entry file, however, the memory we use primarily is not for database cache but is for the entry cache.
>
> This memory size applies to Sun Directory Server 6.3. We are transitioning to 389, and 389 uses about half the memory required for the entry cache, so we probably can get by with 64G for those nodes, but with Linux, we have been experiencing the memory fragmentation problem which grows the memory requirements significantly when lots of modifies are done. For this reason, we are also going with 128G for that environment.
>
>
> Ultimately, you will need to test for performance, but definitely test with larger memory sizes and larger cache sizes to verify what speed improvements you might get. Speed can be very seriously impacted when the cache is not tuned well and doesn't have enough space for decent response time.
>
>
> Regards,
> Russ.
>
>
> ==============================
> Russell Beall
> Programmer Analyst IV
> Enterprise Identity Management
> University of Southern California
> beall@usc.edu
> ==============================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2012, at 6:30 AM, P R pwrdevman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> First off, my server is equipped with 12GB of physical memory. From reading tuning guides online, I’ve found that a starting estimate for the ‘dbcachesize’ = SUM(allDB4files). For one of my directory instances, the id2entry.db4 file alone is ~ 11GB.
> Performance wise, would it be worthwhile to increase the amount of physical memory on the server (perhaps 64-128GB)? Or does 11GB for an id2entry seem like an extremely high value that’s out of the operating capabilities of the directory? Is it unheard of for a production directory server to be equipped with 64GB of physical memory?
>
> Thanks,
> pwr
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>
>
>
>
>