[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Serious Concurrency problem with openldap-2.0.X

To: "Michel.Minsoul" <Michel.Minsoul@ulg.ac.be>
Subject: Re: Serious Concurrency problem with openldap-2.0.X
From: Andreas Hasenack <andreas@conectiva.com.br>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:23:48 -0200
Cc: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>, openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
Content-disposition: inline
In-reply-to: <Pine.A41.4.20.0202070932570.68032-100000@aix16.segi.ulg.ac.be>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020129113105.0172dd90@127.0.0.1> <Pine.A41.4.20.0202070932570.68032-100000@aix16.segi.ulg.ac.be>
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.25i

Em Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:52:28AM +0100, Michel.Minsoul escreveu:
> I have tested openldap-2.0.22 and it seems to work. I could not reproduce
> the concurrency problem I had with openldap-2.0.21. Thanks for fixing this
> bug rapidly.
> 
> Just one more question. It seems that the new giant lock prevents any
> entry from being read while a given entry is being updated. It would be

Just a question, what would be better then regarding this behaviour: compile openldap without
threads or upgrade to 2.0.22? I.e., this "giant lock" behaviour in .22 would
be the same as if 2.0.21 was compiled without threads, right?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Serious Concurrency problem with openldap-2.0.X
  - From: "Michel.Minsoul" <Michel.Minsoul@ulg.ac.be>

References:
- Re: Serious Concurrency problem with openldap-2.0.X
  - From: "Michel.Minsoul" <Michel.Minsoul@ulg.ac.be>

Prev by Date: dc's in the suffix and adding the node to the tree
Next by Date: Re: Support of Kerberos V5 safe and private messages for LDAP
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread