[Pkg-openldap-devel] Recommendation for ldbm to bdb

[Matthijs Mohlmann]

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigF3A55A79E0B70714A660F19F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> Hi Matthijs, 
> 
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:28:10PM +0200, Matthijs Mohlmann wrote:
> 
>>Here the patch (with svn diff) that recommends bdb.
> 
> 
> Great, thanks. I hope it's okay to discuss the changes for a bit...
> 
> Generally what I don't like is that the changes are tied to changing
> ldbm to bdb. I'd expect that some day the hdb backend will be the
> recommended one so I'd like to replace the invokation of
> configure_ldbm_to_bdb to something like
> 
> 	change_backend ldbm bdb
> 
That's a point. But then it needs much more generic.

Now i test for the ldbm backend and ask for changing backend. If we
change it to your suggestion then that question is always asked.

> or something along that line. 
> 
> 
>>What the patch does:
>>if the user has ldbm in the current configuration
>>ask for switching to bdb (see configure_dumping).
> 
> 
> Quoting the template for that change:
> 
> 
>>+_Description: Changing database backend.
>>+ It is highly recommended to use the BDB backend. This is also the recommended
>>+ choice of the OpenLDAP developers. The LDBM backend has proven to be more
>>+ reliable in earlier versions of OpenLDAP. (Versions 2.1.30 and below)
>>+ .
>>+ When using the BDB backend make sure you configure BDB properly. For 
>>+ information to do so, see: http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/893.html.
> 
> 
> I think it is a bad idea to mention that LDBM is more stable in earlier
> versions. 
> 
> Given that we had only problems with people running ldbm I think we
> should even enforce changing the backend during upgrade. Comments?
> 
Enforcing is a point, but if the user not know that it's automatically
changed. What happens then ?
(next RC: Automatically changing backend not wanted)

And even worse, if the user doesn't know the change what about the
performance which can be tweaked with DB_CONFIG ?

> Thanks again!
> 
> 	Torsten

Regards,

Matthijs Mohlmann

--------------enigF3A55A79E0B70714A660F19F
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCjHeu2n1ROIkXqbARAmqkAKCYwHCwWQAnttNqlJy87GY5YzsgwACgm/6+
26yE6GuedjN2RUW3fMTSdLA=
=TDrz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigF3A55A79E0B70714A660F19F--