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

Re: SyncRepl provider failure, ITS 3534 and 3546

Thank you Howard for the information.  One more question for y'all:
Given the below discussion, what is the current recommended
configuration for an enterprise environment, including (at a minimum)
replication, GSSAPI, and TLS?  Should I be running 2.2.23 with slurpd,
2.2.23 + patch referenced below with syncrepl, 2.3, or something else?
I know this question is rehashed often, but I haven't heard anyone ask
about 2.2.23 + Syncrepl with regard to this bug.  Should syncrepl really
just be avoided throughout the 2.2.x series, and 2.2.23 run with slurp
for greatest stability?


On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 11:24 -0800, Howard Chu wrote:
> Matthew J. Smith wrote:
> >Does this mean there will be a 2.2.24?
> >
> Most likely, yes.
> >  And if so, could you give me a rough idea of the timeline?
> >  
> >
> No, I have no idea.
> >-Matt
> >
> >On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 10:21 -0800, Howard Chu wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>After a lot of testing I've decided to commit the patch from ITS#3546, 
> >>so it will appear in 2.2.24. The patch is already in  
> >>OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_2 in CVS if you'd like to test it yourself.
> >>
> >>The resource leak described in ITS#3448 occurs pretty rarely, i.e., only 
> >>when a persistent search connection closes uncleanly (typically due to a 
> >>network failure, or the persistent search client terminating uncleanly), 
> >>so I think it's livable until 2.3 goes into production.
> >>    
> >>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part