I still want to push this little points directly from the OpenLDAP faq: * back-ldbm is /obsolete/ and /should not be used/.
*As a historical note, the back-ldbm code is a direct descendant of the original University of Michigan code. The age of the code and its byzantine data structures were becoming unmaintainable, and since back-bdb has proven itself to be more reliable, the decision was made to delete back-ldbm from the code base. *While BerkeleyDB supports this generic interface, it also offers a much richer API that has a lot more power and a lot more complexity. back-bdb is written specifically for the Berkeley DB /Transactional Data Store/ API. That is, back-bdb uses BDB's most advanced features to offer transactional consistency, durability, fine-grained locking, and other features that offer improved concurrency, reliability, and useability. // Dave Harrison wrote: > 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.
