--On May 2, 2007 4:26:19 PM -0400 Daniel Henninger <daniel(a)ncsu.edu> wrote:
> --On April 30, 2007 9:58:07 AM -0400 Daniel Henninger
> <daniel(a)ncsu.edu> wrote:
>> Hi folk,
>> First off, let me say that per our last conversation about this, I
>> not yet rebuild cyrus-sasl/openldap against a different Kerberos
>> (I was going to build against 1.5.. right now I'm at 1.2.8.. we
>> tend to
>> steer clear of Heimdal) Anyway, on April 28th, at 12:05AM, all
>> three of
>> our slave servers' slapds died. All for apparently different
> Why do you "steer clear" of Heimdal for linking the server
> libraries against? In any case, MIT Krb5 1.2 is known to not be
> thread safe.
History. In the past when I had tried to use heimdal with something else
it caused a wealth of problems. That may not be the case now, but I
don't really see the point in using multiple implementations of Kerberos
if I can avoid it so I have never gone back to reevaluate. =)
I used Heimdal on my servers because MIT at the time was just completely
unstable. Since then, I continued to use it because MIT's implementation
was significantly slower. Since all it is used for are the libraries, it
isn't really a pain to be dealing with.
So that's what the problem is with 1.2? Not thread safe? Ok.
good to know!
Yep, and in later versions, disable the replay cache if you want to get any
type of performance at all out of MIT.
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration