[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21
> >> > Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
> >> > ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
> >> > inconsistent!
> >> > Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 100111 local6.debug]
> >> > slapd starting
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Can I get a status on alock for LDBM?
> >> >
> >> > According to:
> >> > http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/servers/slapd/alock.c?hideatt
> >> > ic= 1&sortbydate=0
> >> >
> >> > it looks like ldbm is having some alock rethinks. Should I wait for
> >> > ldbm to be re-stabilized in 2.3.x?
> >>
> >> LDBM is going to be removed from OpenLDAP 2.4, and there are many reasons
> >> not to use LDBM (stability, etc). I would rethink why you are using LDBM
> >> in the first place (not that the problem you are reporting doesn't need
> >> to be addressed).
> >
> > The reason I'm using LDBM is that I can migrate my servers to 2.3
> > -very quickly- by sticking with the same backend as I was using in
> > 2.1.
> > Basically, my procedure was:
> > install binaries, run db_upgrade, start slapd. (takes about two minutes)
> >
> > Is this error because my database directories did not contain the
> > 'alock' file when I started up? I saw that 'alock' was created when I
> > started.
> >
> > I can do some testing on this once my slamd run is finished tomorrow,
> > but I would appreciate some direction.
>
> How large is your database?
>
> If it is not absolutely huge, it should be fairly quick to load it using
> slapadd -q, and if you have a multiple CPU system, you can use the
> multi-threaded nature of slapadd in 2.3 to speed it up even more (see the
> tool-threads directive). This is all assuming you are using BDB of course.
>
> I would really rethink using LDBM, especially since you are upgrading to a
> modern version of OpenLDAP.
>
> Now that you've started slapd, and alock is created, does LDBM continue to
> complain, or are things happy?
>
My database is about 6M entries. I agree 100% that I should start
using BDB. I have no interest in using something that is no longer
supported. (too bad my peers don't necessarily think that way) So my
main reason for using LDBM is that I can do the upgrades fast, and
then work on larger changes slower.
As an aside, I am pushing for this quick transition because I was
under the impression that 2.1 and 2.3 could not replicate to
eachother. Is this correct? I would love to compile a compatibility
matrix to help anyone who is also trying to create upgrade paths. I
already know that slapcat/slapadd from 2.1 to 2.3 requires some
intervention.