Re: Is putting slapd into read-only mode sufficient for backups?

[Philip Guenther <guenther+ldaptech@sendmail.com>]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Brian Reichert wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00:29PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> > **      Note that the ordering of this is almost completely inflexible.
> > **      In particular:
> > **              (0) must preceed (5)
> > **              (1) must preceed (2) and (3)
> > **              (2) and (3) must preceed (4)
> > **              (4) must preceed (5)
> > **              (5) must preceed (6) and (7)
> > **
> > **      Minimizing the time between (3) and (6) is highly desirable,
> > **      as that minimizes the window in which a checkpoint could
> > **      occur that would result in a backup that would require
> > **      catastrophic recovery when restored.
> 
> Egads.  I badly want to express that as a makefile. 'make -j -f 
> slapdbackup.mk' so you can get your ordering constraints, and yet take 
> advantage of whatever parallel tasks you can. :)

These are not dynamic constraints; I took a chunk of care and got the 
above right, checked it with Sleepycat, then documented the reasons and 
have not seen any reason to touch it again.  My recommendation is not 
spend time putting lipstick on a pig.


> Is management of a HDB backend's directory any easier?

HDB is no different from BDB in this.  HDB is 'just' a change to the stuff 
*inside* the DB, not to the DB itself.

MDB, the new thing that Howard's been working on, is completely different 
and doesn't need any of this.


Philip