On 5/20/07, Dave Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Uv Pzaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-20 23:12]:
>> I wonder why OpenBSD packages (i.e. openldap-server-2.3.24.tgz) still
>> uses ldbm as database backend especially since the OpenLDAP folks are
>> stating that this is no good any more:
>> (http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/756.htm) and not bdb or hdb.
>
> because ldbm works fine, very much opposed to the other two you mention.
My personal experiences with ldbm were equally fine, I recommend you use it
unless you are performing frequent writes, or are in need of high performance
lookups. Once I started making regular writes, ldbm started to pack it in
rather frequently (db corruption) so I went to bdb, however bdb takes careful
tuning to get right.
Older versions of bdb went bad a fairly regular basis. I had DB's go
corrupt as often as once a day under older verson of OL using bdb.
This hasn't been a problem for a while though. I havn't had a db go
bad in 2 years, even after power failures.
I forget specifically what versions of openldap and bdb had this
problem but it went away with the versions from ports on 3.7.
--Bryan
