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

Re: memory leak, or 'normal' behaviour?

To: Openldap list <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
Subject: Re: memory leak, or 'normal' behaviour?
From: Tony Earnshaw <tonye@billy.demon.nl>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:53:13 +0100
In-reply-to: <722004808.1079339003@cadabra-dsl.stanford.edu>
Organization: Billy
References: <OFD0AE3ED3.B70A7D0D-ONC1256E58.00380411-C1256E58.0039B6A1@t-mobi le.at> <46739.131.175.154.56.1079359808.squirrel@webmail.sys-net.it> <722004808.1079339003@cadabra-dsl.stanford.edu>

man, 15.03.2004 kl. 17.23 skrev Quanah Gibson-Mount:

> You might want to read his note closely -- He compiled against MIT 
> Kerberos, which as I've stated at least 500 times already (well, maybe not 
> quite *that* many), is full of memory leaks, and cannot handle threading at 
> all.  His result in relation to the server crashing is exactly what one 
> *should* expect.

"Voor de lol" as they say in Dutch, "just for fun" I'd done 3000+
iterations of a (n admittedly 2.2.6) MD5 ldapwhoami proxy SASL bind
against slapd. No memory leaks, nothing - stable as a rock. So it must
be the KB5 instance that OP is using. That or 2.1.25, which I do not
believe, since many would have already posted about this.

--Tonni

-- 

mail: billy - at - billy.demon.nl
http://www.billy.demon.nl

References:
- Re: memory leak, or 'normal' behaviour?
  - From: "Pierangelo Masarati" <ando@sys-net.it>
- Re: memory leak, or 'normal' behaviour?
  - From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: DB_CONFIG
Next by Date: Re: memory leak, or 'normal' behaviour?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread