[Date Prev][Date Next]
FW: running DB on different machine than slapd
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: FW: running DB on different machine than slapd
- From: "Kelly, Terence P" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:05:44 -0000
- Cc: email@example.com
- Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
- Thread-index: AcfmJSCHonDwYaiPQgepXCUo6/va4QAa6LWwAABmcuA=
- Thread-topic: running DB on different machine than slapd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Chu [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 1:04 AM
> To: Kelly, Terence P
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: running DB on different machine
> than slapd
> Kelly, Terence P wrote:
> > For a variety of reasons I would like to run
> > the back-end database beneath slapd on a
> > different machine than slapd.
> > This appears to be difficult using the
> > Berkeley DB.
> Makes no sense at all, given that BerkeleyDB is
> an *embedded* database. I.e., it doesn't run in
> a separate process, it is designed to run in the
> same process as the application that uses it.
Yes, I know. I was hoping it would be easier
if I used some other database.
> > Can anyone offer suggestions on how to run
> > slapd and the database --- any database ---
> > on separate machines?
> Why? I think if you provide more details about
> your motivation it would be easier to suggest
> usable alternatives.
I'm a researcher and one of my interests is in
the trade-offs between performance and other
properties (e.g., fault isolation/security)
that various software architectures offer.
Furthermore I want to include OpenLDAP in an
apples-to-apples comparison involving other
applications with multi-tier architectures in
which the various tiers run on separate physical
Therefore I'm interested in any way of running
the underlying database on a different physical
machine then the slapd application, even if the
performance overhead is substantial.
Does that make sense?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions you can