> > back-hdb does, and at least in 2.3.11 or later, is as robust as back-bdb. > > I personally would avoid using back-ldbm if at all possible for numerous > reasons. ;) And hopefully it'll be removed when 2.4 comes out. I would make a care for ldbm as it doesn't seem to create as much i/o load as back-bdb. This is helpful with a large database.