Am Tue, 6 Jan 2015 22:39:18 +0200
schrieb Nikos Voutsinas <nvoutsin(a)gmail.com>:
I am not sure if I should interpret this as "sql-backend is a
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
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.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com>
> Nick Atzert wrote:
> > I personally wouldn't move to a sql backend.. I've recommended
> > against
> > 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.
Dieter Klünter | Systemberatung
GPG Key ID: E9ED159B