any benefit to skipping unused schema files?

[Tim Mooney]

I'm preparing to upgrade our OpenLDAP installation from 2.3.x to 2.4.21.
I've been through chapter 13 (Schema Specification) of the admin guide and
read the entries in the schema section of the FAQ.

With 2.4.x, there are several more schema files that are loaded by
default, vs. what we are using in our 2.3.x installation (core,
cosine, inetorgperson, misc, and one custom overlay).

Is there any appreciable benefit to not loading schema files that I'm
confident we won't be using (java, dyngroup, corba, probably others)?
I generally avoid "kitchen sink" software installation and prefer to pare
down what's enabled in a software package to the bits we need, but I
can't imagine skipping a few schema files is going to save a significant
amount of resources on a modern system with 24 GiB RAM. Is there any
other reason to skip schema files we won't be using?

Thanks,

Tim

[Michael Ströder]

Post by Tim Mooney
Is there any appreciable benefit to not loading schema files that I'm
confident we won't be using (java, dyngroup, corba, probably others)?
I generally avoid "kitchen sink" software installation and prefer to pare
down what's enabled in a software package to the bits we need, but I
can't imagine skipping a few schema files is going to save a significant
amount of resources on a modern system with 24 GiB RAM. Is there any
other reason to skip schema files we won't be using?

If you're using schema-aware LDAP clients which load the whole subschema
subentry you save bandwidth and client-side processing. My web2ldap caches the
pre-parsed subschema subentry for a part of the DIT but the initial
loading/parsing of really big subschema subentries (>500 kB) is significant on
older systems.

Ciao, Michael.