Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>]

--On Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:39 PM -0400 matthew sporleder 
<msporleder@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I would really rethink using LDBM, especially since you are upgrading to
> > a modern version of OpenLDAP.
> >
> > Now that you've started slapd, and alock is created, does LDBM continue
> > to complain, or are things happy?
>
> My database is about 6M entries.  I agree 100% that I should start
> using BDB.  I have no interest in using something that is no longer
> supported.  (too bad my peers don't necessarily think that way)  So my
> main reason for using LDBM is that I can do the upgrades fast, and
> then work on larger changes slower.
>
> As an aside, I am pushing for this quick transition because I was
> under the impression that 2.1 and 2.3 could not replicate to
> eachother.  Is this correct?  I would love to compile a compatibility
> matrix to help anyone who is also trying to create upgrade paths.  I
> already know that slapcat/slapadd from 2.1 to 2.3 requires some
> intervention.

A 2.1 master can replicate to a 2.3 slave, as the slave will just fill in 
the missing attributes.  This was a feature added to 2.3 to make upgrading 
easier.  In any case, I think you cannot do the upgrade path you thought 
with LDBM.


--Quanah

--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITS/Shared Application Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html