Henning Brauer(lists-open...@bsws.de)@2009.01.06 14:42:09 +0100:
* Toni Mueller openbsd-m...@oeko.net [2009-01-06 12:25]:
openldap is still a piece of shit, but the ldbm backend is probably the
sanest one.
This pattern comes up often, but almost noone suggests an alternative
LDAP
* dan-openbsd-m...@ourbrains.org dan-openbsd-m...@ourbrains.org [2009-01-16
19:38]:
Henning Brauer(lists-open...@bsws.de)@2009.01.06 14:42:09 +0100:
I am not aware of any. Lack of options doesn't make openldap better.
There is an option for people who have very basic LDAP needs - tinyldap
Henning Brauer(lists-open...@bsws.de)@2009.01.06 14:42:09 +0100:
I am not aware of any. Lack of options doesn't make openldap better.
There is an option for people who have very basic LDAP needs - tinyldap
from fefe.de. It's high quality but lacks many features at the time.
On Tue, 06.01.2009 at 06:27:17 -0500, ppruett-lists ppru...@webengr.com wrote:
Actually a lot linux users suggest using mysql for the non relational
authentication tables
;)
I knew you've got to be kidding!
--
Kind regards,
--Toni++
Hi,
On Tue, 06.01.2009 at 14:42:09 +0100, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de
wrote:
* Toni Mueller openbsd-m...@oeko.net [2009-01-06 12:25]:
This pattern comes up often, but almost noone suggests an alternative
LDAP server package.
I am not aware of any. Lack of options doesn't make
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Philip Guenther guent...@gmail.com [2009-01-06 00:40]:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com
wrote:
...
Any DB that needs human help after a crash is in my opinion a bad choice.
So that would rule out the ldbm backend, no? Last I
Here's an untested tarball of an updated openldap port, split into
directories for 2.3 and 2.4: http://spacehopper.org/tmp/openldap.tgz
This issue has been kicked around for maybe two years, it has been on
the misc list before,
This pattern comes up often, but almost noone suggests an alternative
LDAP server package
Actually a lot linux users suggest using mysql for the non relational
authentication tables
;)
Hi,
On Tue, 06.01.2009 at 01:08:27 +0100, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de
wrote:
I am using openldap with ldbm backend in an not exactly small
installation for 9 or 10 years now. I have never ever experienced a
broken database. never.
my last encounter with ldbm, a few years back, drove
Moving this to po...@. Reply-To/MFT set, please honour it.
On 2009/01/06 06:11, ppruett-lists wrote:
Here's an untested tarball of an updated openldap port, split into
directories for 2.3 and 2.4: http://spacehopper.org/tmp/openldap.tgz
This issue has been kicked around for maybe two
* Toni Mueller openbsd-m...@oeko.net [2009-01-06 12:25]:
openldap is still a piece of shit, but the ldbm backend is probably the
sanest one.
This pattern comes up often, but almost noone suggests an alternative
LDAP server package.
I am not aware of any. Lack of options doesn't make
Damn, forgot to send my response to list:
Message-ID: 49624a88.3020...@raapid.net
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:59:36 -0600
From: tico tico-o...@raapid.net
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: P.Pruett ppru...@webengr.com
Subject: Re: OpenLDAP w/o bdb okay
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:30 AM, P.Pruett ppru...@webengr.com wrote:
For OpenBSD 4.4 and current the flavor bdb is broken on openldap
BROKEN=OpenLDAP 2.3 is incompatible with Berkeley DB 4.6
Most past articles have strongly suggested haveing openldap use bdb
as its storage method. Seeing
If your LDAP environment is anything at all like the majority I've seen
you will not notice any difference whatsoever (except you'll be free
from BDB corruption during a crash).
Yep since I am not write heavy then the non bdb could be okay,
but as an afore mentioned in this thread I am
For OpenBSD 4.4 and current the flavor bdb is broken on openldap
BROKEN=OpenLDAP 2.3 is incompatible with Berkeley DB 4.6
So, what to do? My experience is that compiling BDB and OpenLDAP
yourself isn't hard,
yep, I remember compiling apache back in the middle 90's
For security and
For OpenBSD 4.4 and current the flavor bdb is broken on openldap
BROKEN=OpenLDAP 2.3 is incompatible with Berkeley DB 4.6
Most past articles have strongly suggested haveing openldap use bdb
as its storage method. Seeing that even the current port is not ready
to implement OpenLDAP 2.4
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 01:46:30PM -0500, ppruett-lists wrote:
If your LDAP environment is anything at all like the majority I've
seen you will not notice any difference whatsoever (except you'll be
free from BDB corruption during a crash).
Yep since I am not write heavy then the non
P.Pruett wrote:
For OpenBSD 4.4 and current the flavor bdb is broken on openldap
BROKEN=OpenLDAP 2.3 is incompatible with Berkeley DB 4.6
Most past articles have strongly suggested haveing openldap use bdb
as its storage method. Seeing that even the current port is not ready
to implement
On 2009-01-05, ppruett-lists ppru...@webengr.com wrote:
So choices for those with older openbsd port of openldap with bdb flavor
are:
* don't upgrade ( bad choice)
* upgrade to openbsd 4.4 or current using the official port and renter
data storing in the obsolete backend ldbm (ughhh)
* Or
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com wrote:
...
Any DB that needs human help after a crash is in my opinion a bad choice.
So that would rule out the ldbm backend, no? Last I checked the libc
btree code, a crash while writing out a page split would corrupt the
* Philip Guenther guent...@gmail.com [2009-01-06 00:40]:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com
wrote:
...
Any DB that needs human help after a crash is in my opinion a bad choice.
So that would rule out the ldbm backend, no? Last I checked the libc
21 matches
Mail list logo
