[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Real alternatives to BDB?
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Marten Lehmann <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> we are currently running openldap 2.2.13 with a bdb-4.2.52 backend as it
> comes with RHEL4. We have about 50.000 cn's each having about 5-10
> attributes with a length of no longer than 100 characters. So our
> dataset is not very big.
> We have a lot of concurrent reads since or ldap provides the data for
> incoming and pop3/imap servers. But we have only about 100 changes/adds
> a day, not more.
> Yesterday we had the second bdb problem in our 1 year ldap setup. The
> problem is, that we cannot really detect the crash, since ldap queries
> just hang, but neither they timeout nor openldap is crashing. We just
> notice the mailserver issues and have to track it down to openldap and
> bdb. As with last time, we had to shutdown openldap and recover bdb.
> Fortunately we have been able to recover the data-directory both times
> using dv_recover. But in fact, we want to have a backend, that doesn't
> crash twice a year. And as our setup is growing and we want to start
> with replication, we want a backend to whom we can trust.
BDB worked very solidly at my last company. I deployed a server that
had a couple hundred thousand queries per day (though maybe only
50-100 writes), and the server never crashed once and was still
running 2.5 years later when it was finally decommissioned. It had to
be dragged offline kicking and screaming. :-)