> specific pitfalls of running their packaged version. Are there > reliability issues? Database integrity issues? Performance issues?
The answer with 2.2.23 would have to be "Yes". Look at what was fixed in 2.2 before it was marked obsolete: http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/Attic/CHANGES?rev=1.5.6.262&hideattic=1&sortbydate=0 Things are more concrete with descriptions, of course. Let me offer some personal stories: Reliability? I personally ran into a crash on a search, ITS#3688. I assume you allow searches on your LDAP server. If any of your users issue the command I did, the 2.2 server may well seg fault. You see #3688 in the CHANGES link was fixed in 2.2.26. Database integrity? I personally ran into ITS#3764. The "readonly" tools, like slapcat, didn't have a signal handler. Perhaps you use slapcat to back up your database? If it fails for some reason, your database gets a dangling lock. You see #3764 in the CHANGES link was fixed in 2.2.27. Performance? I've used the Quick Tools ("-q") of 2.3 to bring the time it takes to put a new slave server online -- including OS and database population -- to within half an hour. This wasn't possible in previous versions, not even with bdb logging disabled. 2.2.23 was good software in its time. Really, I think 2.2 reached maturity somewhere near 2.2.21, and 2.2.23 was more than usable. But we're talking about a year and a half ago in a very active open source product. There's been so much accomplished since then. In the case of performance/usability/functionality enhancements, it's a shame for the admin and the user to not have some of the new features. In the case of the reliability/integrity/memory management/threading issues, it's purely playing with matches.
