[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: dropping back-ldbm
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
The fact that people routinely ignore documentation doesn't seem
pertinent to this discussion.
The fact that you've had issues getting BDB to work in your
environment is unfortunate, but it is well documented at this point as
to both how to build the BDB libraries, and how to configure the BDB
Yet how to configure BDB remains a FAQ.
And our "issues" were not related to that, but to BDB bugs or
BDB or back-bdb? Please be more precise in your comments.
This is an argument to upgrade to back-bdb. Things like aliases don't
work in back-ldbm, other new features really won't get in there. Judging
from problem reports from 2.1.30 users, back-ldbm still has outstanding
IDL bugs which will most likely never be fixed.
(...)...and keep all the other problems that have been fixed since those
And people in that situation can do what they've done for years --
Maybe we've just have had bad timing, but so far BDB has had issues
every time we have had time to look at switching to BDB at our site.
E.g. one time I think we needed to apply some patch to Sleepycat in
order to turn off transaction logging in slapadd.
Anyway, LDBM works for us - a read-only database which is built
regularly from scratch - so upgrading is a low priority.
Stick to Windows 95, Windows 98, OpenLDAP 2.0, etc, etc.
releases, and maybe downgrade a bunch of older libraries that the old
release expects. No thanks.
That seems to me to be a faulty perception. In terms of data integrity,
back-ldbm is far more fragile - it's just that the software would never
detect when damage had occurred. back-bdb may require more attention to
set up properly and maintain, but that is because the design offers more
visibility into the actual condition of the data.
If LDBM had been removed, we might also have found the incentive to work
around the BDB bugs we encountered, or to live with the ways BDB was a
poorer solution than LDBM at those times.
In any case, I guess my main point is that BDB still seems rather more
fragile than LDBM.
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support