Re: OpenLDAP question
* 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. -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
Re: OpenLDAP question
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. There also seems to be lots of noise about ldbm support becoming deprecated in the 2.4+ releases of OpenLDAP. You should review the OpenLDAP lists to research this more if that's of concern.
Re: OpenLDAP question
On 5/20/07, Dave Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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. Older versions of bdb went bad a fairly regular basis. I had DB's go corrupt as often as once a day under older verson of OL using bdb. This hasn't been a problem for a while though. I havn't had a db go bad in 2 years, even after power failures. I forget specifically what versions of openldap and bdb had this problem but it went away with the versions from ports on 3.7. --Bryan
Re: OpenLDAP question
* Bryan Irvine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-21 09:01]: > Older versions of bdb went bad a fairly regular basis. I had DB's go > corrupt as often as once a day under older verson of OL using bdb. > This hasn't been a problem for a while though. I havn't had a db go > bad in 2 years, even after power failures. aha, that is good news. tried it sth nasty like a sparc64 too? :) -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
Re: OpenLDAP question
* 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. -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
Re: OpenLDAP question
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.
Re: OpenLDAP question
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.
Re: OpenLDAP question
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 07:29:45AM +0200, 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. This is not entirely true. I know for a fact mcbride@ has run into some serious problems with ldbm and openldap in -current. Something about it just completely losing one out of a every 150 queries. Switching to the stable version of OpenLDAP and bdb solved his problem. -- Mathieu Sauve-Frankel
