[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Mysql as a backend for LDAP
I would argue that your first point cuts both ways: ldap isn't a
replacement for relational databases, just as relational databases
aren't a replacement for ldap. They're different tools, intended for
different uses. What's that old saw? When all you have is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail. Furthermore, I would argue that quite a
bit of thought went into the way data is represented in ldap, it's not
*just* a way of making this information available over the network.
Read Kurt's entry in the faq-o-matic about all this (someone quoted it
earlier).
As far as efficiency (efficiency of what exactly?) goes, I would think
that would depend on what operation you're talking about. In any case,
this is way more involved than I wanted to get in this discussion.
Cheers,
Andrew
-- On Sep 28, 12:37pm, "Jesse W. Asher" wrote:
> Subject: Re: Mysql as a backend for LDAP
>
> --------------090007080106000007010608
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Not really. LDAP is not geared for a heavy write environment - it's
> geared for applications that are light on writes and heavy on reads.
> LDAP is not a replacement for relational databases - it's just another
> method of getting data to people that need the data. You can also do a
> heck of a lot more things with a relational database (or an
> object/relational database) than you can with LDAP in terms of
> manipulating/messaging data in an _efficient fashion_. Because of this,
> businesses still need to run some kind of relational database to store
> their data in and that means using a database as a backend and LDAP as a
> front end to that don't.
>
> Also, don't get confused with LDAP as a protocol and LDAP as a data
> store. You can store your data in whatever, wherever, and however you
> like and still deliver it via LDAP. That was exactly the point. A lot
> of people tend to view LDAP as a data store and that is not what LDAP is
> all about. LDAP is mostly about data delivery - not data storage. A
> prime example of this is Netscape's directory server which used to (I'm
> not sure if they still do) use Sybase as the data repository.
>
> Andrew Tristan wrote:
>
> >Oddly, I frequently use the same reason to argue for putting data in
> >ldap rather than oracle or mysql. The fact that ldap is based on open
> >standards while rdbms aren't (last I took the time to look, anyway)
> >seems to me to weigh heavily in ldap's favor.
> >Best,
> >Andrew
> >
> >-- On Sep 27, 4:52pm, "Jesse W. Asher" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Subject: Re: Mysql as a backend for LDAP
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Yes, but you don't want to. Why does everyone keep thinking using an
> >>>RDBMS as a backend to LDAP is a good idea? And mysql no less... I
> >>>might be able to understand Oracle, DB2, etc... If you don't understand
> >>>why this is a terrible idea please go read the FAQ entry about this.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Why? Because having the data in a relational backend allows one to use
> >>that same data for many other things. My philosophy is to do my best to
> >>have as few data sources as possible and to minimize the number of
> >>places that data must be maintained. Having this data in a database
> >>has a LOT of advantages.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >-- End of excerpt from "Jesse W. Asher" --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Jesse W. Asher
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
> safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." - Benjamin Franklin
>
> --------------090007080106000007010608
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
> <title></title>
> </head>
> <body>
> <br>
> Not really. LDAP is not geared for a heavy write environment - it's geared
> for applications that are light on writes and heavy on reads. LDAP is not
> a replacement for relational databases - it's just another method of getting
> data to people that need the data. You can also do a heck of a lot more
> things with a relational database (or an object/relational database) than
> you can with LDAP in terms of manipulating/messaging data in an _efficient
> fashion_. Because of this, businesses still need to run some kind of relational
> database to store their data in and that means using a database as a backend
> and LDAP as a front end to that don't.<br>
> <br>
> Also, don't get confused with LDAP as a protocol and LDAP as a data store.
> You can store your data in whatever, wherever, and however you like and
> still deliver it via LDAP. That was exactly the point. A lot of people
> tend to view LDAP as a data store and that is not what LDAP is all about.
> LDAP is mostly about data delivery - not data storage. A prime example
> of this is Netscape's directory server which used to (I'm not sure if they
> still do) use Sybase as the data repository. <br>
> <br>
> Andrew Tristan wrote:<br>
> <blockquote type="cite"
> cite="mid200209272227.g8RMRE912604@acacia.ucr.edu">
> <pre wrap="">Oddly, I frequently use the same reason to argue for putting data in
> ldap rather than oracle or mysql. The fact that ldap is based on open
> standards while rdbms aren't (last I took the time to look, anyway)
> seems to me to weigh heavily in ldap's favor.
> Best,
> Andrew
>
> -- On Sep 27, 4:52pm, "Jesse W. Asher" wrote:
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">Subject: Re: Mysql as a backend for LDAP
>
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">Yes, but you don't want to. Why does everyone keep thinking using an
> RDBMS as a backend to LDAP is a good idea? And mysql no less... I
> might be able to understand Oracle, DB2, etc... If you don't understand
> why this is a terrible idea please go read the FAQ entry about this.
>
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <pre wrap="">Why? Because having the data in a relational backend allows one to use
> that same data for many other things. My philosophy is to do my best to
> have as few data sources as possible and to minimize the number of
> places that data must be maintained. Having this data in a database
> has a LOT of advantages.
>
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <pre wrap=""><!---->-- End of excerpt from "Jesse W. Asher" --
>
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <br>
> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="$mailwrapcol">--
> Jesse W. Asher
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
> safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." - Benjamin Franklin
> </pre>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> --------------090007080106000007010608--
-- End of excerpt from "Jesse W. Asher" --
--
andrew.tristan@ucr.edu Unix Systems Group UC, Riverside