On 07/02/14 21:01, Howard Chu wrote:
I've tested all the way up to 6.0.20. Didn't notice anything good or bad about any of them, and all are slower than LMDB.
OK thanks for confirming this but the post on the Debian bug reporter list (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=688797) does state:
" What version of BDB are you linked to? There are consistent reports of deadlock issues with BDB 5.3. I would recommend against using that version of BDB. 4.7.25+patches has been solid for me. All indications with the BDB deadlock issue in 5.3 is that it is a BDB bug, and thus nothing to do with OpenLDAP. It may exist in other 5.x versions of BDB. "
I'm not making this up, honest ;-)
Your ITS#7657 has gotten no attention, due to lack of interest. Aliases are a rather stupid part of LDAP; most other directory vendors don't even bother to implement them.
If I'm honest I don't know why the people who are using them are using them however my hands are tied regarding implementing a change that will cause a significant performance hit for them as it stands. For what it's worth I'd love to move to LMDB both for the performance benefits and the fact that it's a lot lower maintenance than HDB is!
You might be able to revive interest in that ITS by providing a complete test case (config+data) that demonstrates the issue.
That should be do-able although as far as I can remember in the ITS I had demonstrated that (at least on my setup) it was reproduceable and I thought I'd given enough information for it to be reproduced on a clean test rig with a sufficiently large pool of accounts in the one OU. I'm also unsure of the etiquette involved in resurrecting a dormant bug. I'm happy to give you whatever information you need though and a sanitised dump of my config in both HDB and MDB modes is probably a good place to start.