Re: BDB database maintenance

[Tony Earnshaw <tonni@billy.demon.nl>]

ons, 23.04.2003 kl. 20.28 skrev Jeremy Ardley:

> Eliminating SQL often means eliminating or reducing database administration
> costs, too. Berkeley DB installations seldom need a DBA. In many Berkeley DB
> deployments, the end user may not even realize that a database component is
> part of the product - how many cell phone users think about a data table
> lookup when searching for a number in their personal address book?
> 
> Berkeley DB operates without end-user backups, installation, or tuning.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> My question to the developers of back-bdb is why does the back-bdb use of
> Berkeley DB require end-user backups and tuning?  This includes the
> requirement to mananage the log files and to perform database recovery after
> abnormal shutdown.
> 
> Is the Berkeley article just plain wrong?  Or is there something special
> about back-bdb ?

Well, I'm not one of the Openldap developers, but I'm good at English.

What you have here is a typical "gotcha." What you quote says that the
/end user/ doesn't have to make backups or install anything, *not* the
sysadmin (it compares i.a. a cell phone user - we call them "mobile
users", here.)

Which is true. You could compare it to the end user's frantic searching
for an ODBC driver for an MS Access front end to an SQL database - it
isn't necessary with BDB.

Best,

Tony

-- 

Tony Earnshaw

Do not come to visit me with both arms the same length.

e-post:		tonni@billy.demon.nl
www:		http://www.billy.demon.nl