[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: What's the differences between slapadd and ldapadd?
--On Monday, July 12, 2004 3:02 PM +0200 Buchan Milne
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
|> You can use ldapadd to populate a
|> new/empty database if you really want to, there's not much performance
|> difference between it and slapadd these days.
| There can be based on whether or not you have transaction logging and
| log file creation enabled though. ;) On a sufficiently fast system
| (3GHz) it is true I don't see much difference between the two.
But since transaction logging settings affect both slapadd and slapd,
the performance difference is mainly network overhead and load imposed
by other clients.
True, but I generally disable transaction logging when running slapadd, and
then enable it before starting slapd. If I was using ldapadd, I would
leave transaction logging on, so I would expect that there could be some
performance impact on ldapadd vs slapadd because of that.
Still, as I said with my debian system, I didn't notice it taking
protractedly longer using ldapadd vs. slapadd even with BDB logs and
transaction logging on.
Principal Software Developer
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html