[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Questions about the history of openldap and sleepy cat
Thanks Howard, I really appreciate the answers.
Sorry for getting a little confused about 1.0.19 .vs. 2.0.19, but you figured it out no problem.
Regarding back-ldbm, is it safe for just single user access or when OpenLdap gets several simultaneous write
events does openldap make back-ldbm concurrency safe?
We will have several java threads writing to OpenLdap via JNDI. Should we be using back-bdb rather then
back-ldbm?
Thanks again.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Howard Chu [mailto:hyc@highlandsun.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 11:03 PM
>>To: 'Tom Smallwood'; openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
>>Subject: RE: Questions about the history of openldap and sleepy cat
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
>>[mailto:owner-openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Tom
>>Smallwood
>>
>>I have a few questions regarding Openldap and sleepycat
>>hopefully the group can provide some information.
>>
>>We are using the win32 Openldap 1.0.19 that was compiled and
>>packaged by FiveSight. <<< I haven't looked, but I'd bet that
>>is 2.0.19, not 1.0.19. There was no 1.0.19 release.
>>>>>
>>Its been working well but now we need to become more familier
>>with whats going on in the backend. I believe this binary
>>distribution includes sleepy cat - from what I can gather
>>from their 'build it yourself' instructions.
>>
>>And to provide a bit of context for the following questions,
>>we know that Sleepy cat comes in four flavors: 1) data store,
>>2) concurrent data store, 3) transactional data store and 4)
>>high availability.
>>
>>In our openldap 1.0.19 we are using "database ldbm". When we
>>use the "ldbm" directive in this instance is its backend the
>>simplest sleepy cat flavor: data store? <<< I guess that's a
>>good way to look at it.
>>>>>
>>It looks like that prior to openldap version 2 that the ldbm
>>directive supported the lowest common denominator of various
>>dbm implementations (sleepy cat data store, gdbm, ndbm,
>>etc.). Is that correct? <<< yes.
>>>>>
>>Beginning with openldap version 2 support the bdb directive
>>was added. The bdb directive then indicates the backend is
>>sleepy cat and it looks like that may be the second sleepy
>>cat flavor: concurrent data store. Is that correct? <<< No.
>>back-bdb was added in version 2.1 and uses the transactional
>>data store. back-ldbm is still available in 2.1, in much the
>>same form as before, though with many bug fixes and some
>>minor speedups.
>>>>>
>>Were we to compile sleepy cat and openldap ourselves, would
>>that give us access to all flavors of sleepy cat or does
>>openldap only support certain flavors of sleepy cat like data
>>store and concurrent data store? <<< OpenLDAP 2.1 back-bdb
>>uses transactions. back-ldbm uses whatever it did before.
>>>>>
>>Any information and/or history regarding these items would be
>>much appreciated. <<<
>>
>> -- Howard Chu
>> Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
>> http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc
>> Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support
>>