On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 04:58:13PM +1200, Martin Langhoff (CatalystIT) wrote: > As recently as November 2004, I was seeing serious lockups and dataloss > with BDB backends, due to upstream bugs in the BDB integration, and all > our LDAP setups ended up using LDBM due to reliability concerns.
Understandably. > These BDB reliability concerns are tracked in Bug #190165 > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=190165 > > And look at the pile of bugs indicating slapd lockups when using BDB: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=slapd *sigh* Yes. > Yes, these are old bugs, but they are still open. Is there any > indication from upstream that the problem is fixed? As I am not running real production systems I have never seen these lockups. (I used to but that system is still running woody with an aged version of OpenLDAP and I am no longer responsible). Therefore I can't really acknowledge that. Given the number of yields in the code which seem to work around locking problems I don't have a good feeling... > Now, with LDBM broken as well, I am not sure what to do, really. > Switching to BDB is really risky -- I haven't seen the it work reliably > at all. It has been severely broken in every version I tried in the > 2.0.x and 2.2.x series of OpenLDAP, both from OpenLDAP and from the > corresponding Debian packages. As Stanford is using it I'd expect it to be reliable enough for production use. So going to BDB is probably the best bet. Greetings Torsten
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
