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

Re: openldap (or is it nss_ldap?) not answering

To: openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: Re: openldap (or is it nss_ldap?) not answering
From: Stefano Maffulli <smaffulli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:06:00 +0100
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=mjeGlBOps0MLdk/WD7aL7Z5aX91I7XAmECzfnvNJ492rcxkEv5jX3mUEzilbelgjf/l6yVU2paNff6D07X7H224EYX5VNRbvJl6Kl+wWfwHsO81IMo59tvcxzVc1XGDddLStDdvjBpWuJMVkVJfmMHFWv6pkWwmoLFO3sOxvp3c=
In-reply-to: <41941BCF.2050703@symas.com>
References: <3728b34c041111120071bc19fc@mail.gmail.com> <448525180EB5B3657AF74170@cadabra-dsl.stanford.edu> <41941BCF.2050703@symas.com>

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:11:27 -0800, Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com> wrote:
> Three points:
>   1) OpenLDAP 2.1 is now historic, no longer recommended or supported.

Well, more than unstable I can't go :)  I'll file a bug to debian to tell them.

>   2) even when everything is working correctly, using back-ldbm exposes
> you to the possibility of these hangs occurring from time to time.
>   3) if you want excellent performance you should use back-bdb or
> back-hdb, and you cannot run with the default settings unless your total
> database is about 512KB or less.

I can switch backend, I am ready to try this.  Is there a
best-practice somewhere for the switch?  I couldn't find any.  Or is
it just a matter of slapcat > db.ldif and then slapadd ?

regards
stef

References:
- openldap (or is it nss_ldap?) not answering
  - From: Stefano Maffulli <smaffulli@gmail.com>
- Re: openldap (or is it nss_ldap?) not answering
  - From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>
- Re: openldap (or is it nss_ldap?) not answering
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>

Prev by Date: BerkeleyDB.4.3.21
Next by Date: Re: openldap (or is it nss_ldap?) not answering
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread