[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: back-sql deployment woes
Am Tue, 6 Jan 2015 22:39:18 +0200
schrieb Nikos Voutsinas <email@example.com>:
> I am not sure if I should interpret this as "sql-backend is a second
> class citizen that shouldn't be used in production environments (i.e.
> think of virtual directories) because of its experimental stage" or
> take it as an overstatement been made on purpose mostly to discourage
> new users from considering an sql based engine for their main ldap
> database backend.
> I hadn't had the chance to use sql backend in production or test it
> as much as I would like, thus it would be interesting to hear from
> others in the list, their practical experience of sql backend in
> read-only or read-write deployments.
You may use back-sql as a read only subordinate database, but
performance is limited to the sql engine. Be aware that your
are on your own risk.
At some time i had a postgresql database with a few thousand objects
and a back-relay attached as subordinate database in read only mode.
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Michael Ströder <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Nick Atzert wrote:
> > > I personally wouldn't move to a sql backend.. I've recommended
> > > against
> > it.
> > > This is what the boss wants though so here we are. :-)
> > I'm pretty sure your boss don't want you to use components which
> > are not actively maintained anymore. back-sql is not maintained in
> > the same way like
> > back-mdb. You have to expect that some features (e.g. overlays) you
> > may want
> > to use later do not work the same way.
> > Ciao, Michael.
Dieter Klünter | Systemberatung
GPG Key ID: E9ED159B