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

Re: GDBM vs BDB as openldap backend.

To: <cwg-dated-1044983021.8f8c83@DeepEddy.Com>
Subject: Re: GDBM vs BDB as openldap backend.
From: "Alan Sparks" <asparks@doublesparks.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:58:51 -0700 (MST)
Cc: <lists@codeangels.com>, <OpenLDAP-software@OpenLDAP.org>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <1044551021.20437.TMDA@deepeddy.vircio.com>
References: <2376.192.168.1.3.1044483970.squirrel@www.codeangels.com> <45131.208.169.18.3.1044549353.squirrel@www.doublesparks.net> <1044551021.20437.TMDA@deepeddy.vircio.com>

Chris Garrigues said:

[snip]
> 2.0.x  openldaps and every time I've tried, it's worked fine on my test
> server, but  when I tried to install on my production box, it's gone
> into the weeds and  caused problems for days while I failed to diagnose
> the problem.  It's  frustrating because I can't make it fail on my test
[/snip]

My usual tendency in these circumstances is to start looking for
differences between the two boxes, esp. versions of libraries etc.
installed.

[snip]
> I'm completely stable with GDBM.
[/snip]

Well, that's a Good Thing. :-)

===========
Alan Sparks, UNIX/Linux Systems Administrator    <asparks@doublesparks.net>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GDBM vs BDB as openldap backend.
  - From: Chris Garrigues <cwg-oldap-sw@DeepEddy.Com>

References:
- GDBM vs BDB as openldap backend.
  - From: "Kirill Ponazdyr" <lists@codeangels.com>
- Re: GDBM vs BDB as openldap backend.
  - From: "Alan Sparks" <asparks@doublesparks.net>
- Re: GDBM vs BDB as openldap backend.
  - From: Chris Garrigues <cwg-oldap-sw@DeepEddy.Com>

Prev by Date: Re: GDBM vs BDB as openldap backend.
Next by Date: Re: GDBM vs BDB as openldap backend.
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread