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

Re: AW: bdb bad performance again (really need help)

--On Monday, November 10, 2003 11:55 AM -0400 Ace Suares <ace@suares.nl> wrote:

Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

if there is so many trouble with bdb, why not use ldbm ?

I am wondering why f.i. Tony is so positive about bdb, while I see many
posts  with problems, something about cache corruption, something about
needing a  very large cache, and so on. What's the story ?

The problem is not BDB, the problem is that people do not understand how BDB works, and therefore do not configure it correctly. There has been discussion that goes around and around about whether or not that is something OpenLDAP should document. The general agreement is no, that is the point of Sleepycat's documentation, and it is the responsibility of the person configuring the server to understand how all the different layers of the application work. I certainly don't expect OpenLDAP to maintain the doc's for BDB, ldbm, mysql, Heimdal Kerberos, MIT kerberos, OpenSSL, or Cyrus-SASL. And those are just some of the packages that OpenLDAP can interoperate with.

Stanford certainly had its own issues getting BDB set up properly, but with help from the list, Symas, and most specifically, Howard Chu, we were able to get that resolved. However, just like with anything else, the person or people involved with running an application/service need to have and/or learn familiarity with what it is they are working with.


-- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Developer ITSS/TSS/Computing Systems ITSS/TSS/Infrastructure Operations Stanford University GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html