Re: back-sql deployment woes
If what you are looking for is a backend for your main ldap database then,
as has been said previously, avoid sql by all means, not just the specific
openldap implementation, all kind of sql backends. Relational databases can
not match the requirements of the ldap protocol. It would be like trying to
use GmailFS for general purpose filesystem.
If you need just an "ldap view" to an existing relational database then the
right keyword for this is "Virtual Directory". The sql backend of Openldap
could have been an opensource alternative but now this goes off the list. I
am not aware of any other reliable opensource implementations there are few
commercial though.
Nikos
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Nick Atzert <tlkg.me(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's pretty messy and convoluted IMO. That's with a fairly
pedestrian view
of the project. Considering it's (apparently) unmaintained I'd assume it's
the same for development. The biggest issue I've been having is mostly with
understanding error logs when things break or deviate from a really basic
config.. that may just be me though.
I hope I'm not coming of as accusatory toward the OpenLDAP/back-sql devs.
I like OpenLDAP a lot.. you guys do a great job. I know this is a really
bad way to go about storing the data and I've definitely voiced my
objections on this issue. Sometimes you just have to CYA and do it anyway
though. That's the unfortunate situation I find myself in at the moment.
In any case, thank you guys for taking a look even if you couldn't help. I
do appreciate it.
On Jan 6, 2015 3:39 PM, "Nikos Voutsinas" <nvoutsin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com>
> 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.
>>
>>
>
Attachments:
- attachment.htm (text/html — 3.8 KB)