[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: LinuxThreads, FAQ needs updating for 2.x
Just a note on your ( and many others ) problem building with threads. The
error in libpthread is known to RedHat and acknowledged as a bug in the 2.2-12
RPM. This bug did not exist in 2.2-9 ( its in the way they built the library,
not the library ). Unfortunately, the bug report on the RedHat site says that
they'll just fold the fix into the next release of the library, which happened
in RedHat 7.1. At the same time, they removed 2.2-9 from the ftp site so you
couldn't go back. Either upgrade or live with it, how very Microsoft'esque of
BTW, OpenLDAP builds fine on RedHat 7.1 with threads.
However, my question doesn't concern whether OpenLDAP can build but whether it
will run reliably. Threading issues often wont evince themselves until run
under heavy load. I imagine this is why many users in academic settings have
reported no problems running 1.x servers with threads.
Wayne Browne wrote:
> I have been running using OpenLDAP v2.0.7 with linuxthreads on some
> boxes... Redhat 6.2 and redhat 7.0 (with glibcv2.1) seems to work ok.
> But, when Redhat changed over to glibc2.2 on redhat7.0 compiling with
> treads stopped working (ie. configure saw it as a broken implementation).
> Using gnu threads instead did compile but resulted in a server which hung
> whenever you tried to connect to it. I don't really know about other
> distributions or Redhat 7.1... I ended up recompiling without threads on
> these boxes.
> So the short answer is that there is support for linuxthreads in OpenLDAP
> V2 but it is not useable in every instance (so no definitive answer).
> at 14:01 09/05/2001 -0400, Ajit Nair wrote:
> >If you look at the roadmap it actually says that there is support for
> >pre-emptive threads with OpenLdap2.0. Here's the link
> >and here's what you'll find on that page.
> >Current Releases
> > OpenLDAP 2.0 (released 31 August 2000)
> > LDAPv3 Support and much, much more!
> > LDAPv3 (RFC2251-2256,2829-2831)
> > Strong Authentication (SASL) (RFC2829)
> > Start TLS (RFC2830)
> > Language Tags (RFC2596)
> > DNS-based service location (RFC2247+RFC3088)
> > Password Modify (RFC3062)
> > Enhanced Standalone Server
> > Named References/ManageDsaIT ("nameref" I-D)
> > Enhanced Access Control subsystem
> > Thread pooling
> > Preemptive threading support --------------------------- I
> >believe this is what you're looking for.
> > Multiple listener support
> > LDIFv1 (RFC2849)
> > Improved platform/subsystem detection
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Christopher D. Audley" <Christopher.D.Audley@jhu.edu>
> >To: <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:40 PM
> >Subject: LinuxThreads, FAQ needs updating for 2.x
> > > I've been trying to nail down what the status of OpenLDAP and
> > > LinuxThreads is.
> > >
> > > The FAQ is very clear on OpenLDAP 1.x and pre-emptive threads,
> > > DONT DO IT.
> > >
> > > However, nobody has gone back and updated this message for 2.x. I can't
> > > seem to find the message that says 'I'm an OpenLDAP expert, I know what
> > > the hell I'm talking about and (yes/no) you ( can/can't ) use
> > > LinuxThreads and OpenLDAP'.
> > >
> > > Amoung highly informative messages, I found a message in -devel from
> > > Kurt dated August 1999 explaining that the problem with LinuxThreads is
> > > that signal handling is broken ( not spec compliant ). It suggested
> > > that using the BINDv8 event library might be the way to go. I couldn't
> > > find a follow up to this indicating that LinuxThreads had corrected its
> > > problems or that a suitable replacement had been found (no further
> > > mention of BINDv8).
> > >
> > > In October 2000, Julio Fernandez says threads wont work prior to 2.0,
> > > try upgrading to 2.0.6 or recompile the 1.x server being used. He
> > > doesn't specifically say that 2.x works with pre-emptive threading. I
> > > hate to be pendantic, but I also don't want to get slammed for reading
> > > in between the lines and being wrong.
> > >
> > > The release notes for 2.0 list amoung the enhancements 'Thread Pooling',
> > > but again, this doesn't necessarilly scream "Re-engineered for
> > > pre-emptive threading!" which I think would be something to scream
> > > about.
> > >
> > > On this list you see a lot of conflicting answers to the regular
> > > periodic request for information on LinuxThreads and OpenLDAP.
> > > Recently, email@example.com assured that LinuxThreads and OpenLDAP
> > > 1.2.11 is fine, despite the FAQ to the contrary. Then two weeks later,
> > > firstname.lastname@example.org states as part of his question that they have
> > > definitely seen problems with OpenLDAP and thread support
> > >
> > > Can someone provide the finally, definitive answer. And please updated
> > > the FAQ.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Chris
> > >