On 10/24/2018 12:44 PM, Michael Di Domenico wrote:
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
OP here - it's fine.
We run three 389-ds servers (multi-master) with clunky load-balancing
across about the same number of machines using sssd. The LDAP servers
are VMs on old hardware with 1GB RAM and don't break a sweat.
_______________________________________________
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
