Re: BerkeleyDB versions

[Kari Mattsson <kari@trivore.com>]

Howard Chu wrote:
> Kari Mattsson wrote:
> > Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> > > pre-releases from Sleepycat of 4.6 indicated it was faster than 
> > > 4.2.52 across the board.  Both 4.4 and 4.5 come in slower than 4.2 
> > > and 4.6 in my testing.  So from a throughput (read & write) 
> > > standpoint, 4.2 is what I've found to be the "best" until 4.6 came 
> > > along.
> >
> > Chaps,
> >
> > Am I the only one noticing this:
> >
> > The recommended/optimal Berkeley DB 4.2.52 for OpenLDAP 2.3.x might 
> > not even be supported with the next major release 2.4.x.
> >
> > I've been reading this thread and know about the background on this, 
> > but still..
>
> And your point is?

Simple, yet philosophical:

If 'D' is the best companion for 'O', it is evolutionary to allow 'O+1' 
to still work with 'D'.

Requiring 'D+1' with 'O+1' makes upgrades more difficult to arrange as a 
whole.

So, maybe my point is change management.

> BDB 4.1 was the best available when OpenLDAP 2.1 was released; it was 
> deprecated in favor of BDB 4.2 when OpenLDAP 2.2 was released. How is 
> this any different?

Wasn't here during that time ;-)  ..meaning this same thing has already 
happened before.

> BDB 4.3 would have been the preferred version when OpenLDAP 2.3 was 
> initially released, but we found that 4.3 was terribly broken. It's 
> great that BDB 4.2 has worked for us so long, but it's time to move on.

Yep.  Please do not take this note as a negative one.  It was just a note.