Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Thursday, April 05, 2012 9:44 AM +0200 Michael StrÃder > <email@example.com> wrote: > >> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: >>> In the meantime, download RE24 and see if back-mdb >>> does better for you. >> >> Are you serious? The bug Brandon observed and which I can confirm is a >> serious threat to LDAP functional model. I could definitely reproduce it >> for a while. > > Yes, I'm quite serious. It would be worthwhile to confirm whether or not > back-mdb suffers the same issue. Hard to tell since this bug isn't easily reproducable. As said: I can't easily test on the system in question because of strict operational and privacy regulations. > The issues I've seen with back-hdb that are > similar to this (ITS#6983, for example), is due to the IDL cache code in > back-hdb. Hmm, this might be a hint into the right direction. Could be that this system was running 2.4.26 at that time and fix for ITS#6983 appears in CHANGES as of 2.4.27. Definitely there were subtree renames triggered at that time. If it's the IDL cache would it be helpful to throw away the shared mem files? > back-mdb does not have an IDL cache. Yes, I listened to Howard's presentation on back-mdb and of course I highly appreciate this work. >> IMO back-mdb is still rather experimental though I definitely appreciate >> all the work done recently. > > I think it is at least beta quality as of yesterday. I'm running it in > production now on a few servers, and except for the issues I had with > accesslog cleanup (which is what got fixed yesterday), it has been quite > stable for a few weeks. I'm not in the position to propose changing the backend soon on this customer system. Ciao, Michael.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature