[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: max open files
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Right. But how much do I pay for Apache? How much do I pay for
postfix, sendmail, qmail, or exim? How about MySQL, or Postgresql? The
real issue, for me, is the version cycle. All of those packages have
minor updates fairly regularly, but none of them change major
functionality, and all of them provide packages to various linux
distributions, including Debian and Ubuntu. And most of them have
decent free support, at least via the sort of mailing list we're on now,
that includes those distribution packages. They may well tell you you
need to install the newest debian package, but they'll almost never tell
you that you have to recompile for basic functionality.
Again: this is a decision the development team made. It's not because
it's free, it's because they chose one particular mode of development.
I'm not saying it's wrong, necessarily, but it drives a lot of people --
like me -- to look for alternatives. Right now, the system pretty much
works, despite the fact that I'm using and older version
(2.4.7-6Ubuntu3). The problem, for me, is that if I write to this list
with a problem, I'll be told no one can help me unless I rebuild from
scratch. So far, it's been easier to work around problems or look for
help in the Ubuntu forums.
You're right that I don't need to keep rebuilding as new versions come
out, but that's only as long as I don't want to ask for help: if I need
to change how something works, or add functionality, even if it's
present in the version I have installed, I have to upgrade.
Anyway: this is really all pretty much irrelevant to the list as a
whole. I just wanted to make the point that this is an issue, and
perhaps something the devels should think about. If they decide to
continue on the way they have... well, that's their option. It's their
project, and they can do what they want with it. But they should at
least be aware that people are concerned about the current methods.
Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> I think this falls into the "you get what you pay for..." camp.
> On the support page, they list a number of companies that provide
> technical support services for OpenLDAP. If the price for stability
> is not worth engaging one of them, then you will need to keep your
> software up to a revision level that the developers will support.
> I am curious what constant issues/bugs are affecting you. Once we
> have a working version, it keeps on working and there is no need
> to constantly rebuild your software as new releases come out. The
> other option that we use here is the 389 Directory server, which
> might be an option for you to consider.
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 08:46:38AM -0400, Alex McKenzie wrote:
> I'll be honest: while LDAP does what I need it to, and is the only tool
> I've found that works well for my purposes, this is why I'm constantly
> looking for another option. Just about every request for help I see
> come across this list gets an initial response of "Oh, well, you're one
> or two minor versions out of date. You need to update to the newest
> version before we can help you."
> Software that unstable is not, in my view, really suited to a production
> environment. If the OpenLDAP developers -- who, overall, do an
> excellent job -- can't come up with a stable release every six months or
> so, there's a problem. If there are so many major flaws that running a
> month old version means it's unsupportable, that's an even bigger problem.
> I've been following the list for around a year, and I understand the
> difficulties involved in supporting old versions, but the simple fact
> is, most of us don't have time to custom compile all our server
> software. My Ubuntu-default installs of Apache, postfix, SSH, and just
> about everything else work fine and can be supported by their
> developers. It's only LDAP (and a few things in beta) that absolutely
> have to run the newest version at all times. I chose to accept a
> limited feature-set and bullied GnuTLS into working "well enough" for
> our limited LDAP environment, but if I ever find an alternative, I'll be
> moving away from LDAP to whatever that is.
> And please -- nobody take this as an attack. I really do respect the
> OpenLDAP development team, and the people on this list do their best to
> help everyone, even those of us using old versions. I just question the
> long-term viability of a system that needs to be recompiled as often as
> OpenLDAP seems to.
> -Alex McKenzie
> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>>>> --On Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:21 PM -0300 Matheus Morais
>>>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> Well, IMHO this is a really bad excuse and I was not expecting to hear
>>>>> that in this list.
>>>>> You can get slapd source packages and change the flags as you want.
>>>>> Serious distribution packages as Debian packages shouldn't
>>>>> be discouraged by OpenLDAP dev team as I'm seeing here. Debian packages
>>>>> policy are very strong and help a lot stable environments to be bug-free
>>>>> from recent less stable versions. I use Debian as a protection from that
>>>>> too early versions who can potentially threat my production environment
>>>>> and I was very successful with Debian packages in this attempt.
>>>>> You can also look for support on Debian IRC channels and lists.
>>>> Hi Matheus,
>>>> I'll note that article was written by one of the Debian openldap package
>>>> maintainers. And it is quite correct that anyone wanting to run a
>>>> *stable* OpenLDAP production environment should most definitely *not*
>>>> use the ones provided by most Linux OS providers, *particularly*
>>>> Debian/Ubuntu. The reasons why this is the case have been hashed over
>>>> many, many times. Particularly, the use of GnuTLS which is horribly
>>>> broken being one of the major reasons. The fact that they are not kept
>>>> up to date with current stable releases is another.
>>>> Quanah Gibson-Mount
>>>> Principal Software Engineer
>>>> Zimbra, Inc
>>>> Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----