Re: What's the differences between slapadd and ldapadd?

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>]

--On Monday, July 12, 2004 3:02 PM +0200 Buchan Milne 
<bgmilne@obsidian.co.za> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> |> You can use ldapadd to populate a
> |> new/empty database if you really want to, there's not much performance
> |> difference between it and slapadd these days.
> |
> |
> | There can be based on whether or not you have transaction logging and
> | log file creation enabled though. ;)  On a sufficiently fast system
> | (3GHz) it is true I don't see much difference between the two.
>
> But since transaction logging settings affect both slapadd and slapd,
> the performance difference is mainly network overhead and load imposed
> by other clients.

True, but I generally disable transaction logging when running slapadd, and 
then enable it before starting slapd.  If I was using ldapadd, I would 
leave transaction logging on, so I would expect that there could be some 
performance impact on ldapadd vs slapadd because of that.

Still, as I said with my debian system, I didn't notice it taking 
protractedly longer using ldapadd vs. slapadd even with BDB logs and 
transaction logging on.

--Quanah

--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITSS/Shared Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html