[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Is putting slapd into read-only mode sufficient for backups?
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:09:41PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> 2.3 is not a supported release series. I would strongly advise upgrading
> to a supported release.
Having tracked this project for years, I'm well aware of that stance,
but I'm trapped in a world where I'm stuck with what the vendor
provides, warts and all.
> But yes, back-hdb/bdb are the two mature backends
> for use in the 2.3 series.
Cool! I've been reading about the progress on HDB; hopefully I can
carve out some time to shake it down...
> I would only ever consider a "safe" backup of
> bdb itself to be when slapd is shut down, and after db_recover has been
> run. Then you can safely back up the *.bdb and log.* files. Puting slapd
> in read-only mode is not necessarily sufficient, as you need to force a BDB
> checkpoint prior to backing up the BDB db.
I'm familiar with forcing a checkpoint; from my first post in this
> What we're doing currently is:
> - stopping slapd
> - using db_checkpoint and db_archive to manage the BDB logs
> - copy away the directory
> - restart slapd
I'm trying to estabish if read-only mode is close enough to _stopping_
slapd, to allow that bdb-specific processing to safely commence...
> Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Sr. Member of Technical Staff
> Zimbra, Inc
> A Division of VMware, Inc.
> Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Brian Reichert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
BSD admin/developer at large