[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Viability of OpenLDAP

To: openldap-stable@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: Re: Viability of OpenLDAP
From: Dave Carrigan <dave@rudedog.org>
Date: 05 May 2000 13:08:14 -0700
In-reply-to: Rob Williams's message of "Fri, 5 May 2000 09:35:51 -0700 (PDT)"
Organization: Rudedog.org
References: <20000505163551.12875.qmail@web3203.mail.yahoo.com>
User-agent: Gnus/5.070099 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.99) XEmacs/21.1 (Bryce Canyon)

Rob Williams <robwms63@yahoo.com> writes:

> 1. Is there any way to get OpenLDAP to use a more
> heavy duty database than the Berkeley one, like Sybase
> or Informix? Even an OODBMS like eXcelon would be
> worth looking at!

AFAIK netscape directory server uses berkeley db. You don't want an
industrial strength database (i.e., one with transactions, triggers,
stored procedures, relations, sql, etc.) for ldap. You want something
that is relatively lightweight and is screaming fast on reads. Berkeley
is both.

-- 
Dave Carrigan (dave@rudedog.org)            | Yow! Is this the line for the
UNIX-Apache-Perl-Linux-Firewalls-LDAP-C-DNS | latest whimsical YUGOSLAVIAN
Seattle, WA, USA                            | drama which also makes you want
http://www.rudedog.org/                     | to CRY and reconsider the
                                            | VIETNAM WAR?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Viability of OpenLDAP
  - From: Julio Sánchez Fernández <j_sanchez@stl.es>

References:
- Viability of OpenLDAP
  - From: Rob Williams <robwms63@yahoo.com>

Prev by Date: Re: using -W/-w <binddnpasswd>
Next by Date: relationships between classes
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread