I still want to push this little points directly from the OpenLDAP faq:
* back-ldbm is /obsolete/ and /should not be used/.
*As a historical note, the back-ldbm code is a direct descendant of the
original University of Michigan code. The age of the code and its
byzantine data structures were becoming unmaintainable, and since
back-bdb has proven itself to be more reliable, the decision was made to
delete back-ldbm from the code base.
*While BerkeleyDB supports this generic interface, it also offers a much
richer API that has a lot more power and a lot more complexity. back-bdb
is written specifically for the Berkeley DB /Transactional Data Store/
API. That is, back-bdb uses BDB's most advanced features to offer
transactional consistency, durability, fine-grained locking, and other
features that offer improved concurrency, reliability, and useability.
//
Dave Harrison wrote:
> Henning Brauer wrote:
>
>> * Dave Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-21 08:26]:
>>
>>> Henning Brauer wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Uv Pzaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-20 23:12]:
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why OpenBSD packages (i.e. openldap-server-2.3.24.tgz) still
>>>>> uses ldbm as database backend especially since the OpenLDAP folks are
>>>>> stating that this is no good any more:
>>>>> (http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/756.htm) and not bdb or hdb.
>>>>>
>>>> because ldbm works fine, very much opposed to the other two you mention.
>>>>
>>> My personal experiences with ldbm were equally fine, I recommend you use it
>>> unless you are performing frequent writes, or are in need of high
>>> performance
>>> lookups. Once I started making regular writes, ldbm started to pack it in
>>> rather frequently (db corruption) so I went to bdb, however bdb takes
>>> careful
>>> tuning to get right.
>>>
>> now that is funny, in the, what, 5 years? of using openldap/ldbm, i
>> have never seen database corruption. trying to use bdb, pretty much
>> immediately.
>>
>
> As I said, depends on how you're using it.
>
> After a year, as the usage grew, I found ldbm was corrupting regularly and bdb
> solved the problem nicely. 3 years later, bdb is still perfectly fine.
>
> Obviously the other, valid, concern is what the OpenLDAP project intends to
> support.
>
> With this kind of thing I think the mantra of YMMV is probably wise.
