Re: Real alternatives to BDB?

[Buchan Milne <bgmilne@staff.telkomsa.net>]

On Wednesday 26 March 2008 18:11:15 andylockran wrote:
> Howard Chu wrote:
> > 4.2.52 (with documented patches) has never failed for me. 4.3 was known
> > to blow up in many situations. 4.6.21 looks pretty good, there's no
> > reported problems with it. BDB 4.7 is in the works already. On my last
> > test, 4.7.13 SEGV'd in its deadlock detector, so yeah, I guess their
> > release record is kind
> > of spotty. But that's also the nature of newer software; as 4.7 is still
> > early
> > in its release cycle I expect it will improve just as the others did.
>
> Howard Chu wrote:
> > 4.2.52 (with documented patches) has never failed for me.
>
> Apologies for reviving a dead thread - but I've had a couple of occasions
> this year when I've had to restore the bdb backend using db_recover.
>
> I notice I'm using the version of bdb mentioned on this thread.. but am
> ignorant to the patches.   I installed Buchan Milne's repo in order to get
> a stable openldap on RHEL4 - but my bdb version is still stuck in 2003.

Well, it (the 4.2 shipped in the packages) does have all said patches.

> What is the best advised route to upgrading - is there another repo with
> bdb in it, or should I compile bdb manually - then link to it later?

My 2.4 packages ship with 4.6.

I could consider updating the 2.3 packages to ship 4.5, but I am personally 
planning to migrate off 2.3 relatively soon (if possible taking other 
dependencies in our environment into account).

Regards,
Buchan