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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

--On Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:39 PM -0400 matthew sporleder <msporleder@gmail.com> wrote:

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

A 2.1 master can replicate to a 2.3 slave, as the slave will just fill in the missing attributes. This was a feature added to 2.3 to make upgrading easier. In any case, I think you cannot do the upgrade path you thought with LDBM.


Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITS/Shared Application Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html