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

Re: bdb backend - reliable or not?

To: "Tomasz Chmielewski" <mangoo@wpkg.org>
Subject: Re: bdb backend - reliable or not?
From: FRLinux <frlinux@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:55:40 +0100
Cc: openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
Content-disposition: inline
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hpCbWZ/ukBGcloblD2/JXI61++gNtjfxT8GM8xMQNFPoIuIVE4sxVzD+SuPwPT9KNH/RItZKhtOFoewXNn25wXRQkP2zdb0k+RadGTISu6pjhIR9ozVlSt/GI76H94GASg+R4EYWd/tAksaEb5Ho6kayFuj/SGNiB8a0paxDDsw=
In-reply-to: <44BF3D9B.7040204@wpkg.org>
References: <44BF3D9B.7040204@wpkg.org>

On 7/20/06, Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@wpkg.org> wrote:

Will an upgrade to 2.3.24 solve my problems with bdb, or shall I revert
back to ldbm?


We've been using 2.3.21 for a bit and recently upgraded to 2.3.24 and
all servers are really happy. Worth mentionning that from 2.1.x to
2.3.x, we've always been using bdb.

Steph

Follow-Ups:
- Re: bdb backend - reliable or not?
  - From: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@wpkg.org>

References:
- bdb backend - reliable or not?
  - From: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@wpkg.org>

Prev by Date: Re: bdb backend - reliable or not?
Next by Date: Re: bdb backend - reliable or not?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread