Am Tue, 6 Jan 2015 22:39:18 +0200 schrieb Nikos Voutsinas <[email protected]>:
> I am not sure if I should interpret this as "sql-backend is a second > class citizen that shouldn't be used in production environments (i.e. > think of virtual directories) because of its experimental stage" or > take it as an overstatement been made on purpose mostly to discourage > new users from considering an sql based engine for their main ldap > database backend. > > I hadn't had the chance to use sql backend in production or test it > as much as I would like, thus it would be interesting to hear from > others in the list, their practical experience of sql backend in > read-only or read-write deployments. You may use back-sql as a read only subordinate database, but performance is limited to the sql engine. Be aware that your are on your own risk. At some time i had a postgresql database with a few thousand objects and a back-relay attached as subordinate database in read only mode. -Dieter > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Michael Ströder <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Nick Atzert wrote: > > > I personally wouldn't move to a sql backend.. I've recommended > > > against > > it. > > > This is what the boss wants though so here we are. :-) > > > > I'm pretty sure your boss don't want you to use components which > > are not actively maintained anymore. back-sql is not maintained in > > the same way like > > back-mdb. You have to expect that some features (e.g. overlays) you > > may want > > to use later do not work the same way. > > > > Ciao, Michael. > > > > -- Dieter Klünter | Systemberatung http://sys4.de GPG Key ID: E9ED159B 53°37'09,95"N 10°08'02,42"E
