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

RE: slave slapd crashes on MOD by slurpd (ITS#2527)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-openldap-bugs@OpenLDAP.org
> [mailto:owner-openldap-bugs@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of
> vek@pharmapartners.nl

> > FYI we applied this patch in our production environment a
> few days after
> > it came out in March.
> > Up till now no problems have been reported. It's deployed
> on at least 12
> > slaves managing about 70k entries with a daily update of about 15k
> > (adds, mods and deletes).

> Is this the patch from ITS#2348?  As far as I can see it _is_
> included in
> the 2.1.20 and probably also the four or five releases
> previous to that,
> even though I don't see any mention of it in the CHANGES file.

Yes, looks like it went in with release 2.1.16 but wasn't noted in the
CHANGES file. But while the patch is present in the 2.0 Release Engineering
CVS branch, there has not been any 2.0 release that includes it. Looks like
there won't be any either, since 2.0 is now historical and 2.2 is about to
enter alpha testing.
> Peopler might still want the ldbm backend, for example if for
> any reason
> they prefer GDBM with a more stable ABI and API over Berkeley DB.

Hmmm... GDBM still has stability issues of its own, including data loss in
large databases. Of course the ldbm backend is still supported in the current
releases so people who want it can continue to use it.
> I haven't heard any complaints from our customer after this
> patch and it
> was very bad before.  Number of entries more than 100000.
> Villy

  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
  http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
  Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support