Re: Is putting slapd into read-only mode sufficient for backups?

[Brian Reichert <reichert@numachi.com>]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:09:41PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> 2.3 is not a supported release series.  I would strongly advise upgrading 
> to a supported release.

Having tracked this project for years, I'm well aware of that stance,
but I'm trapped in a world where I'm stuck with what the vendor
provides, warts and all.

> But yes, back-hdb/bdb are the two mature backends 
> for use in the 2.3 series.

Cool!  I've been reading about the progress on HDB; hopefully I can
carve out some time to shake it down...

> I would only ever consider a "safe" backup of 
> bdb itself to be when slapd is shut down, and after db_recover has been 
> run.  Then you can safely back up the *.bdb and log.* files.  Puting slapd 
> in read-only mode is not necessarily sufficient, as you need to force a BDB 
> checkpoint prior to backing up the BDB db.

I'm familiar with forcing a checkpoint; from my first post in this
thread:

> What we're doing currently is:
> 
> - stopping slapd
> - using db_checkpoint and db_archive to manage the BDB logs
> - copy away the directory
> - restart slapd

I'm trying to estabish if read-only mode is close enough to _stopping_
slapd, to allow that bdb-specific processing to safely commence...

> --Quanah
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Sr. Member of Technical Staff
> Zimbra, Inc
> A Division of VMware, Inc.
> --------------------
> Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

-- 
Brian Reichert				<reichert@numachi.com>
BSD admin/developer at large