[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [Fwd: Re: LDBM or BDB ?]
fre, 02.04.2004 kl. 12.14 skrev Kent L. Nasveschuk:
> Kent L. Nasveschuk wrote:
>
> > Can anyone give me some reasons to switch from ldbm to Berkeley bdb for
> > LDAP backend? I had such problems getting LDAP to compile with BDB that
> > I gave up on it until recently. Now I don't know if it is worth the
> > effort to recompile all databases to BDB or leave as is. I have roughly
> > 2000 accounts 3 slave LDAP directories and 1 master. These are used
> > primarily for Samba authentication.
>
> I recommend you stay a while with ldbm; samba wrotes very few in the
> ldap, so the ldbm may be OK (we have about +29.000 accounts and runs as
> a charm).
> The DBD requires a careful tunning, and may be a pain if you don't have
> some experience (look the list :).
Kent,
I'd suggest you read Sleepycat's own comments on this - alas bundled
with the BDB source. I went over to BDB soon after beginning with
Openldap (2.1.8 IIRC) around 2 years ago, after others on the list
answered exactly the same question from me :) The answer was, don't use
ldbm if you do regular writes, as it grows sparser and sparser ("full of
holes") and there's no way of repairing that.
Suffice it to say that RedHat with RHEL3 has itself abruptly left ldbm
for BDB (even though RH has kept to Openldap 2.0.27), and that many
notables on this list also advise BDB. Yes, you need to spend extra time
on the Sleepycat docs, yes it costs more time and trouble to configure
it (DB_CONFIG) but you get much back in the form of dependability and
reliability. Lastly, BDB is now the DB implementation that Openldap
developers use as standard and is the only one being developed by
Sleepycat.
Best,
--Tonni
--
mail: billy - at - billy.demon.nl
http://www.billy.demon.nl