[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Handle-info] list handles question
The issue was resolved by increasing the run-time memory.
Ev
PS: Handles server fetches the handles for the main naming authority and all the sub-naming
authorities and then filters out the data. This can be avoided if ListHdlsEnum would append
‘/‘ to the naming authority prefix in the bind parameter for SQLHandleStorage.SCAN_BYPREFIX_STMT.
On Apr 18, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Evguenia Krylova <evguenia.krylova@doit.wisc.edu> wrote:
> We have a naming authority of 1711 and two sub-naming authorities 1711.DL and 1711.WEB.
> 1711 contains a small set of administrative handles with 1711.DL and 1711.WEB containing
> about 10800 and 2000 handles respectively.
>
> We are in the process of migrating from Handle 6.2.5-02 to 7.3.1.
> When list handles request is issued to a primary handle server v6 for 1711, only handle under
> 1711 namespace are listed and so is the case for 1711.DL and 1711.WEB.
>
> When running handle server v7.3.1, I see that list handle requests to 1711 is attempting to list
> all handles from 1711 and from 1711.DL and 1711.WEB. This results in out of memory exception.
> We are running with the following Java memory options: -Xms512 -Xmx512 -XX:MaxPermSize=512
>
> We are using Postgres for the data storage layer with the database layout suggested in the
> Handle documentation.
>
> What is the correct behavior of the list handles operation? RFC3652 does not provide the specifics
> on how handles should be listed for naming authorities with sub-naming authorities.
>
> Thank you,
> Ev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Handle-Info mailing list
> Handle-Info@cnri.reston.va.us
> http://www.handle.net/mailman/listinfo/handle-info
_______________________________________________
Handle-Info mailing list
Handle-Info@cnri.reston.va.us
http://www.handle.net/mailman/listinfo/handle-info