[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Antw: Re: OpenLDAP 2.5 plans and community engagement
Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>> Quanah Gibson-Mount <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb am 25.07.2019 um 16:31 in
> Nachricht <2537EDE10877E990D54B64FF@[192.168.1.39]>:
>> --On Thursday, July 25, 2019 12:12 PM +0200 Ondřej Kuzník
>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> What I don't like is the strong focus on one (LMDB) database backend,
>>>> despite of all the stupid things Oracle does.
>>> There are big issues with the two BerkeleyDB backends for many
>>> installations so it had to be abandoned. I'll let Howard or Quanah take
>>> this part of the discussion further should they choose to.
>>> Unfortunately, no other backend is in shape to be useable as a main
>>> database in production.
>> BerkeleyDB 6 and later are not license compatible with OpenLDAP. Thus one
>> of the "stupid" things Oracle did is ensure the removal of the back-bdb and
>> back-hdb backends from OpenLDAP as well as BerkeleyDB from numerous other
>> pieces of software. It has already been noted that back-bdb/hdb are
>> deprecated and that the supported primary database backend going forward
>> from that point was back-mdb.
> But if the license is the only problem, users still could use an older version
> ("last good") of BDB. To me I always had the impression that you want to push
> MDB, not because it's better, but because it's yours.
LMDB is demonstrably better than BDB in every way.
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/