[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: back-sql deployment woes

On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 09:59:28AM +0100, Dieter Klünter wrote:

> 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.

Another option would be to use back-sock and write a separate server process to
translate between the back-sock protocol (extended LDIF) and SQL.
You should get better performance (if your server programming is good)
and if something goes wrong there is less code to debug: back-sock has under
1500 lines of C, where back-sql has over 11000...

There are still many caveats though: limited ACLs, fundamental mismatch in data
model, poor performance and resource usage when compared with back-mdb etc...

|                 From Andrew Findlay, Skills 1st Ltd                 |
| Consultant in large-scale systems, networks, and directory services |
|     http://www.skills-1st.co.uk/                +44 1628 782565     |