[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21
> >>>>> Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
> >>>>> ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
> >>>>> inconsistent!
> >>>>> Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 100111 local6.debug]
> >>>>> slapd starting
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can I get a status on alock for LDBM?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> According to:
> >>>>> http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/servers/slapd/alock.c?hideatt
> >>>>> ic= 1&sortbydate=0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it looks like ldbm is having some alock rethinks. Should I wait for
> >>>>> ldbm to be re-stabilized in 2.3.x?
> >>>>>
> >>>> LDBM is going to be removed from OpenLDAP 2.4, and there are many reasons
> >>>> not to use LDBM (stability, etc). I would rethink why you are using LDBM
> >>>> in the first place (not that the problem you are reporting doesn't need
> >>>> to be addressed).
> >>>>
> >>> The reason I'm using LDBM is that I can migrate my servers to 2.3
> >>> -very quickly- by sticking with the same backend as I was using in
> >>> 2.1.
> >>> Basically, my procedure was:
> >>> install binaries, run db_upgrade, start slapd. (takes about two minutes)
> >>>
> >
> >
> db_upgrade will change the low level BerkeleyDB data structures but it
> obviously has no knowledge of OpenLDAP's own data structures. Since you
> are already aware that 2.1 to 2.3 have data format incompatibilities, it
> makes absolutely no sense to believe you could just db_upgrade the data
> files and immediately use them with 2.3.
> > My database is about 6M entries. I agree 100% that I should start
> > using BDB. I have no interest in using something that is no longer
> > supported. (too bad my peers don't necessarily think that way) So my
> > main reason for using LDBM is that I can do the upgrades fast, and
> > then work on larger changes slower.
> >
>
> The notion that you can upgrade LDBM (or any other slapd database) with
> any shortcut around slapcat/slapadd is mistaken.
> > As an aside, I am pushing for this quick transition because I was
> > under the impression that 2.1 and 2.3 could not replicate to
> > eachother. Is this correct? I would love to compile a compatibility
> > matrix to help anyone who is also trying to create upgrade paths. I
> > already know that slapcat/slapadd from 2.1 to 2.3 requires some
> > intervention.
>
> OpenLDAP 2.3 will accept replication data from any other server.
> However, as I recall, the entryCSN operational attribute was introduced
> in 2.1 and its syntax/format changed in 2.2, so those attributes may
> need to be rewritten on the 2.3 server (if you plan to switch over to
> using syncrepl).
Ah ha. Okay, thanks for setting me straight on this.
I'm glad that 2.1 can replicate to 2.3 with slurpd. This should make
things a lot easier for me! I'll restart my testing after
slapcat/slapadd.