Am Tue, 6 Jan 2015 22:39:18 +0200 schrieb Nikos Voutsinas nvoutsin@gmail.com:
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.
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. At some time i had a postgresql database with a few thousand objects and a back-relay attached as subordinate database in read only mode.
-Dieter
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Michael Ströder michael@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.