Henning Brauer wrote: > * Dave Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-21 08:26]: >> 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. > > now that is funny, in the, what, 5 years? of using openldap/ldbm, i > have never seen database corruption. trying to use bdb, pretty much > immediately.
As I said, depends on how you're using it. After a year, as the usage grew, I found ldbm was corrupting regularly and bdb solved the problem nicely. 3 years later, bdb is still perfectly fine. Obviously the other, valid, concern is what the OpenLDAP project intends to support. With this kind of thing I think the mantra of YMMV is probably wise.
