Re: Slaves taking up 100% cpu

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>]

--On Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:44 PM +0200 Buchan Milne 
<bgmilne@obsidian.co.za> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> > tir, 20.01.2004 kl. 11.53 skrev Buchan Milne:
> >
> > RedHat is also shipping 2.1.22 as the alternative to 2.0.27. As far as
> > Openldap and RedHat go, RedHat verges on the conservative. Catch 22:
>
> So that makes 3 large distros the OpenLDAP team has failed to
> communicate the severity of the problems with 2.1.22 to?

Umm... Is it really the responsibility of OpenLDAP to communicate to them? 
Shouldn't they instead be subscribed to the *official* channel 
(openldap-announce@openldap.org), so they are aware of new releases and 
state changes?

> > There is *no* stable release of Openldap software. As soon as a release
> > has been proved as being stable, it is then judged (Quanah ;) as being
> > no longer supported (me, I'm an experimental person, so what the heck?
> > There's money to be earned on it).
>
> <sarcasm>OK, so we should ditch openldap, and find an alternative which
> will support stable releases???</sarcasm>

No software company or product that I know of, will simply state that 
product A is stable and supported if you do not have the most recent 
patches applied to that product.  I the problem here is that you are 
looking at releases in a different sense than I do.  OpenLDAP-2.1.25 is 
OpenLDAP-2.1.22 plus 3 patch sets, basically.  And it is what is stable.


> Sorry, but if there are *known* stability problems (yes, I saw problems
> on a 2.1.22 slave, but no longer have access to it and couldn't debug it
> at the time) it is only reasonable for them to be clearly visible.

Subscribe to the OpenLDAP-announce list so you can read the release 
announcements.  It lists what bugs were fixed in previous releases, and you 
can even go and *read* what those fixes were for (imagine that!).

> > Be that as is may, what the Openldap site *actually* (at the moment)
> > says is:
> >
> >         The OpenLDAP Software Stable release is the last release which
> >         has proven through general use to be the most stable release
> >         available. OpenLDAP-2.1.25, as of 20031217, is considered
> >         stable.
>
> And 2 months ago it said the same of 2.1.22, but that statement has not
> been retracted, so are we to assume (without any other information) that
> 2.1.22 is stable, or not?

Umm... Again, subscribe to the OpenLDAP-announce list.  Every time what is 
considered "stable" is changed, it is posted there.  Your failure to be a 
part of the *officially maintained channel of communication* is not their 
fault.

> > Howard Chu has posted on this list, that 2.1.26 is on the boil,
> > presumably because of bugs in 2.1.25.
>
> So?

So you might want to pay attention...

> > The Openldap project seems to render a product in constant development.
> > No single Internet service seems to have as many IETF rfcs devoted to
> > it, of which the number is constantly increasing, other than smtp
> > e-mail. Witness the constant stream of Postfix and Exim releases (forget
> > Qmail and Sendmail).
> So is everyone who runs openldap on production machines supposed to
> subscribe to all the mailing lists? I run a lot of other software in
> production, for which I don't need to subscribe to the lists to have a
> stable system ...

Again, openldap-announce and read the bug fixes.  That isn't a whole lot, 
and it is a low volume list.

--Quanah

--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITSS/TSS/Computing Systems
ITSS/TSS/Infrastructure Operations
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html