Re: large ldap server recommendation

[Brad Knowles <b.knowles@its.utexas.edu>]

Howard Chu wrote:

> While ITS#5342 is still being investigated, I would recommend that 
> everyone use 2.3.39 and not 2.3.40. Sorry for the trouble.

Unfortunately, this is a pretty important production server, and there 
are a number of other groups involved.

In any normal upgrade, we have a fairly extensive 
proposal/discussion/consensus process we have to go through with all the 
stakeholders before we get into the test/qualification process, which 
has to happen before we can think about scheduling an outage to take 
down one of the production servers for an upgrade.  As you can imagine, 
this is a fairly long and involved procedure.  And I'm just starting to 
scratch the surface on this one.

In this particular case, we had jumped from 2.3.35 to 2.3.40 because 
there was a critical operational problem and we were looking for quick 
solutions that we could implement in a short period of time, and we 
bypassed all the normal processes -- which did not end up working for us.


Unless there is another critical problem that occurs with 2.3.35, I 
doubt we'll be going through all the normal processes to consider an 
upgrade to a newer version, at least not until after we've had more 
extensive consultation to ensure we're not doing lots of other stupid 
stuff elsewhere.

From what I can tell, other than the one operational problem we've 
identified and know how to work around, 2.3.35 seems to work okay, and I 
think we're likely to leave it alone until we know we've got something 
that will be a big improvement.


Thanks!

--
Brad Knowles <b.knowles@its.utexas.edu>
Senior System Administrator, UT Austin ITS-Unix
COM 24  |  5-9342