Re: Follow up to Corrupt Index files

[Tony Earnshaw <tonni@billy.demon.nl>]

tir, 2002-10-29 kl. 18:25 skrev Kevin McEachern:

> i) Is running OpenLDAP 2.1 and BDB 4 a much safer configuration? I've noticed that with this configuration you can run the directory server using back-bdb which allows "hot-backups" (not shutting down the server in order to run a slapcat), since it uses finer grained locking than back-ldbm which I think is the only choice available when using Berkeley DB with OpenLDAP versions before 2.1. However, if we upgrade to this version are we introducing new problems? What are the most stable releases of OpenLDAP 2.1 and BDB 4?

Kevin,

Why in the name of all that is wonderful, if integrity means so much to
you (which naturally it ought to), don't you run a test DSA with
whatever it is you want to test?

Why do people keep asking what is right to run? Howard has already
answered this question well enough, I would have thought ("new releases
are developed to eliminate bugs in previous releases".) If by running
so-called stable versions you experience trouble, then at least test
drive the latest bug fixes under production conditions.

As for me, having started with "stable" versions with "stable" database
libraries and having been utterly shocked by the bugs encountered with
them, I'm a BDB 4 convert and update 2.1 series regularly, as new bugs
become apparent. But I always run new versions for a week or so in a
test setup first. Oh - and do try to make backups as the BDB 4 documents
describe? Not by doing slapcat, but by taking advantage of the
fine-grained, roll-back logging facilities offered by the latest
Berkeley technology.

Best,

Tony

-- 

Tony Earnshaw

Could have been Henrik Ibsen's, Ole Bull's,
Henrik Wergelands's, Camilla Collet's and more's
last words, but weren't: «Fanden helder, helder
det at have sadset, end det at ikke have sadset
i det hele taget.»

e-post:		tonni@billy.demon.nl
www:		http://www.billy.demon.nl