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

Re: Slaves taking up 100% cpu

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>

>> 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?

Communication isn't one-way ...

> Shouldn't they instead be subscribed to the *official* channel
> (openldap-announce@openldap.org), so they are aware of new releases and
> state changes?

Nothing posted to openldap-announce recommended that distributors
provide updates. If it's fine for people to run openldap-2.1.22 on
production machines, that's fine, but if you assume that every time
openldap is updated that people will provide official updates, remember:

- -every major piece of software is updated upstream at least once during
the life of a linux distro
- -there's no way a linux distro will issue official updates for each
piece of software for each new version
- -if it's desirable to have linux distro's with stable releases of
openldap, it might be an idea to give more motivation to make an update

> 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.

I am, and I checked the archive before posting in this thread.

> It lists what bugs were fixed in previous releases, and
> you can even go and *read* what those fixes were for (imagine that!).

A normal reading of the announcement of 2.1.23 (which IIRC was never
marked as "stable") doesn't motivate one to provide updates (possibly
because I am not intimately familiar with openldap - but that shouldn't
be necessary), and the announcement for 2.1.25 doesn't say anything
about 2.1.22.

>> 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 been retracted, so are we to assume (without any other information) that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.

I am not worried about the new release being stable, I am worried about
whether an old release is stable or not.

If each time a new stable release is made, that means that all previous
releases are not stable, and should have updates made by vendors, it's
not very clear ...

Can someone point me to the applicable URL on http://www.openldap.org
where it's clear that 2.1.22 should *not* be run in production?

>>> 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...

Sure, but I would assume that all important issues would be on
openldap-announce ...

I maintain a number of packages, and can't always read all their lists
... (I'm working overtime to read this one at present).

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

Look, I'm trying to point out that the status of openldap releases could
be more clear. The information available in openldap-announce and on the
download page seems insufficient (I haven't seen updates from any other
vendors from 2.1.22). If you want to continue to tell me to read the
lists, fine, but wouldn't it be a better solution just to note on the
download page that some people have experienced severe problems with
2.1.22, and that upgrades should be provided (and possibly a similar one
to the announce list?). I think it would save time for everyone
involved, but maybe that's just me.

- --
Buchan Milne
Senior Support Technician
Obsidian Systems
http://www.obsidian.co.za
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFADXlHrJK6UGDSBKcRAqsBAJ93dPj3txo4ABj9vGOBmhZWZj+9XQCfSKOR
+E8Zw53X8GdCja7tnQeWTEs=
=6phd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----