On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:35 PM Ryan Novosielski <novos...@rutgers.edu> wrote: > On 10/24/2018 01:30 PM, Ryan Novosielski wrote: > > On 10/24/2018 01:13 PM, Michael Di Domenico wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:04 PM Ryan Novosielski > >> <novos...@rutgers.edu> wrote: > >>> Funny, we are considering the exact opposite, and this is our > >>> motivation: > >>> > >>> https://access.redhat.com/solutions/2440481 > > > >> we're contemplating the same, but we're okay with switching back > >> to the openldap source. in my opinion redhat deprecating > >> openldap is just a money grab to push people towards rhds > > > > I don't have an alternate theory, but 389-ds is free, and I guess > > I imagined "comparable." I suppose if it's not as capable as > > OpenLDAP and RHDS is, that would make sense. But maybe they just > > want to push people toward something where there's an easy path? > > > > People saying that 389-ds is slow is not encouraging, given that > > we're currently attempting to tune OpenLDAP to be less slow.
i don't want to diverge this thread from the OP, but how fast does ldap really need to be? i have ~700 machines talking to two openldap servers w/ ssl enabled. we have to run nslcd on the clients, but all is well _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
