[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: CLDAP / UDP implementation and performance
At 11:58 AM 7/4/2001, Eric T. Blue wrote:
> I know the Mozilla stuff MAY have been off topic,
The past thread went off topic before Mozilla was even mentioned.
This list is for discussing the development of OpenLDAP, not
how to make use of a particular feature of OpenLDAP, such as
ldapi://. But that's water under the bridge.
To keep this thread on topic, I'll try to focus on discussions
specific to the development of OpenLDAP.
>however my main objective
>in this is to discuss some UDP connection alternatives. I've changed the
>subject of this thread to reflect this. I understand that this was
>experimental code back in the uMich dist. I'm curious about the history of
>CLDAP, and why it haven't really been worked on recently.
I presume it because nobody needs CLDAP enough to work on it.
CLDAP (RFC 1798) provides a very limited capability which is
only useful to a small subset of directory applications. Of course,
in this small subset are some interesting applications (such as
distributed indexing) and these have spurred some recent
discussions regarding CLDAPv3 (which now has morphed into
LDAPv3/UDP). This work is quite experimental at this stage.
>Ultimately, I may be interested in contributing to this effort.
I would suggest you start by reviewing the IETF LDAPext recent
work in this area... as any work we do in this area should
either be driving the IETF work or be driven by the IETF work.
That is, we should avoid doing our own thing here.
>My other questions are also really regarding connection performance.
>After doing some simple benchmarking using ldap:/// and ldapi:///,
>only a 3-5% increase in query throughput from UDP over TCP.
Benchmarking ldap:// vs ldapi:// compares TCP vs IPC, not
TCP vs UDP.
>If this is the
>case, and assuming I'm not doing anything wrong, what was the intended
>benefit for local UDP connections?
See RFC 1798 and recent IETF LDAPext drafts.