[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Real alternatives to BDB?
Marten Lehmann skrev, on 27-02-2008 17:42:
I read through the backend documentation of openldap and berkeley db is
praised as very fast and efficient. Amazing, that berkeleydb is not
called stable anywhere in the documentation. And from my experience, bdb
is not stable. Whenever you here about bdb, you here about it because a
database went corrupt. bdb is just a key/value database that seems to
work fine as long it is read-only. Different projects, e.g. subversion,
have turned away from bdb and use a different backend.
Often they use SQLite. Since SQLite handles complete table layouts, it
would also be possible to create one table with two columns (key and
value as in bdb). SQLite shall also be transactional.
In addition to what the other contributors have proffered, it's worth
noting that Oracle (whilst speaking about SQL databases) purchased the
BDB author SleepyCat and its products with it. Here's what Oracle says
about BDB and when and why it should be used:
But why is openldap sticking on bdb? Does bdb have any other important
features the SQLite doesn't have? Benchmark issues? Replication?
I have to admit, that I'm not using the latest releases of bdb. But I'm
using and watching bdb for years and I hardly believe, that it has
become stable in the latest release.
When I've followed the advice of the OpenLDAP developers, bdb has always
been rock stable for me with latest OpenLDAP versions (2.2 through 2.4)
- and of course, independent of OL, for whatever else of my system's
utilities (too many to mention) that make use of it.
Email: tonni at hetnet dot nl