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

Re: GDBM vs BDB as openldap backend.

> From:  "Alan Sparks" <asparks@doublesparks.net>
> Date:  Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:58:51 -0700 (MST)
> Chris Garrigues said:
> [snip]
> > 2.0.x  openldaps and every time I've tried, it's worked fine on my test
> > server, but  when I tried to install on my production box, it's gone
> > into the weeds and  caused problems for days while I failed to diagnose
> > the problem.  It's  frustrating because I can't make it fail on my test
> [/snip]
> My usual tendency in these circumstances is to start looking for
> differences between the two boxes, esp. versions of libraries etc.
> installed.

The two boxes are both installed with the *exact* same set of RPMs.  The only 
difference that I've identified so far the the afore mentioned samba domain 

> [snip]
> > I'm completely stable with GDBM.
> [/snip]
> Well, that's a Good Thing. :-)

Yeah, that's why I'm not panicking.


Chris Garrigues                 http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO                          http://www.virCIO.Com
716 Congress, Suite 200
Austin, TX  78701		+1 512 374 0500

	    Without some consensus on what *should* happen, all that
	remains is a desert of unfufilled expectations cross dressing
	as "bugs".
				--- Jeff Johnson <jbj@redhat.com>

Attachment: pgpAp5E4kD48A.pgp
Description: PGP signature