15 Jan
2015
15 Jan
'15
10 a.m.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 09:59:28AM +0100, Dieter Klünter wrote:
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.
Another option would be to use back-sock and write a separate server process to translate between the back-sock protocol (extended LDIF) and SQL. You should get better performance (if your server programming is good) and if something goes wrong there is less code to debug: back-sock has under 1500 lines of C, where back-sql has over 11000...
There are still many caveats though: limited ACLs, fundamental mismatch in data model, poor performance and resource usage when compared with back-mdb etc...
Andrew
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| From Andrew Findlay, Skills 1st Ltd |
| Consultant in large-scale systems, networks, and directory services |
| http://www.skills-1st.co.uk/ +44 1628 782565 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------