Thank you Howard for the information. One more question for y'all: Given the below discussion, what is the current recommended configuration for an enterprise environment, including (at a minimum) replication, GSSAPI, and TLS? Should I be running 2.2.23 with slurpd, 2.2.23 + patch referenced below with syncrepl, 2.3, or something else? I know this question is rehashed often, but I haven't heard anyone ask about 2.2.23 + Syncrepl with regard to this bug. Should syncrepl really just be avoided throughout the 2.2.x series, and 2.2.23 run with slurp for greatest stability? -Matt On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 11:24 -0800, Howard Chu wrote: > Matthew J. Smith wrote: > > >Does this mean there will be a 2.2.24? > > > Most likely, yes. > > > And if so, could you give me a rough idea of the timeline? > > > > > No, I have no idea. > > >-Matt > > > >On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 10:21 -0800, Howard Chu wrote: > > > > > >>After a lot of testing I've decided to commit the patch from ITS#3546, > >>so it will appear in 2.2.24. The patch is already in > >>OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_2 in CVS if you'd like to test it yourself. > >> > >>The resource leak described in ITS#3448 occurs pretty rarely, i.e., only > >>when a persistent search connection closes uncleanly (typically due to a > >>network failure, or the persistent search client terminating uncleanly), > >>so I think it's livable until 2.3 goes into production. > >> > >>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part