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.
> 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 > Yes, these are old bugs, but they are still open. Is there any > indication from upstream that the problem is fixed? > 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. In 2.2, LDBM is a royal mess; even in 2.1, AIUI, there were too many problems to consider it releasable. And whereas BDB was unusable in the 2.1 packages, it's reported to be vastly improved in 2.2 when using the correct version of libdb. The remaining corruption bug that is listed in the BTS as applying to 2.2 has at its root a misconfigured server; the bug is still RC because a lack of performance tuning shouldn't result in database corruption, but its impact appears to be minimal unless your server is in an unusable state anyway. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
