[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: OpenLDAP - versioning/stability questions
Quanah Gibson-Mount <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> --On Monday, February 21, 2005 6:25 PM +0100 Dieter Kluenter
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> "Richard L. Goerwitz III" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> As for OpenLDAP, is there a particular version in the 2.2.x series
>>> that's regarded as particularly stable, and that could serve as
>>> the basis for a major directory installation for 18 - 24 months?
>>> (18-24 months is a typical lifecycle at an institution like mine.
>>> It's hard to maintain software that, aside from basic patching, needs
>>> serious work, or gets us into support problems, on anything less
>>> than an 18 month cycle [and even that can be tight]. This isn't
>>> atypical in my experience, at least in higher ed.)
>> This depends on your requirements. If you don't need syncrepl and
>> proxyauthentication by back-ldap nor any overlays, and if you don't
>> care about any vulnerabilities, and if you want to stick with
>> BerkeleyDB 4.2.52, I would say 2.2.18 is rock stable, at least on my
>> systems, otherwise I would go for 2.2.23.
> What does BDB 4.2.52 and what version of OpenLDAP 2.2 you use have to
> do with anything? BDB 4.2 works with all the OpenLDAP 2.2 releases,
> and I certainly hope it'll work with all of the OpenLDAP 2.3 releases
> too, given the inherent problems in BDB 4.3.
The README of 2.2.23:
BDB backend requires Sleepycat Berkeley DB 4.3
Dieter Klünter | Systemberatung
GPG Key ID:01443B53