Re: back-sql deployment woes

[Dieter Klünter <dieter@dkluenter.de>]

Am Tue, 6 Jan 2015 22:39:18 +0200
schrieb Nikos Voutsinas <nvoutsin@gmail.com>:

> I am not sure if I should interpret this as "sql-backend is a second
> class citizen that shouldn't be used in production environments (i.e.
> think of virtual directories) because of its experimental stage" or
> take it as an overstatement been made on purpose mostly to discourage
> new users from considering an sql based engine for their main ldap
> database backend.
> 
> I hadn't had the chance to use sql backend in production or test it
> as much as I would like, thus it would be interesting to hear from
> others in the list, their practical experience of sql backend in
> read-only or read-write deployments.

You may use back-sql as a read only subordinate database, but
performance is limited to the sql engine. Be aware that your
are on your own risk.
At some time i had a postgresql database with a few thousand objects
and a back-relay attached as subordinate database in read only mode.

-Dieter


> 
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Nick Atzert wrote:
> > > I personally wouldn't move to a sql backend.. I've recommended
> > > against
> > it.
> > > This is what the boss wants though so here we are. :-)
> >
> > I'm pretty sure your boss don't want you to use components which
> > are not actively maintained anymore. back-sql is not maintained in
> > the same way like
> > back-mdb. You have to expect that some features (e.g. overlays) you
> > may want
> > to use later do not work the same way.
> >
> > Ciao, Michael.
> >
> >



-- 
Dieter Klünter | Systemberatung
http://sys4.de
GPG Key ID: E9ED159B
53°37'09,95"N
10°08'02,42"E