I was given the note in the RHDS documentation finally.
More than 10 databases running with replication or more than on a supplier can cause performance degradation. To support that many consumers, introduce hub replicas between the suppliers and consumers. See Section 11.6, “Configuring Cascading Replication”.
There is a typo in there, something missing, it’d be great to understand what it’s trying to say. It seems to me it makes no sense, and like you say, it’d be resources, as well as number of entries, replication agreements, frequency of change, etc that affect performance. Not sure how the number of separate databases could matter.
On 05/19/2015 04:10 PM, Colin Tulloch wrote:
Hi Mark –
Let me clarify. These databases would be used in multi-master replication. Is there any limit to the number of databases configured for MMR on an instance/server ?
Nope, there is no hard coded limit. Your only limit is the resources available on the system (disk space, CPU, memory)
On 05/19/2015 02:25 PM, Colin Tulloch wrote:
Hi all –
Is there a limit to the number of databases that can be present on an instance of directory server – or on a server/VM itself?
Some colleagues of mine seem to believe there is a limit of 10 DBs per server. I haven’t seen this in the Redhat documentation myself (we run RHDS, not necessarily 389).
There is no limit on backend databases in the Directory Server.
Cloud Services Architect
Office – (972) 728-0391
Cell – (703) 244-5162
--389 users mailing list