Hi,
Having recently experienced some issues with our Live server (2.4.38, Scientific Linux 6.4 64-bit) I was looking into possible causes and found the following Debian bug report which suggests that BDB 5.X is problematic with OpenLDAP.
What's the "best" version of BDB to go with- I see 4.7.25 "with patches" mentioned in the posting and I noticed that this is the version shipped with LTB. If I were to downgrade my BDB database would this be the best one to go for?
I would like to migrate to MDB but there's an issue with alias de-referencing that's a bit of a deal-breaker for us at the moment as a number of our departments use them to provide subsets of their own users(ITS#7657).
Kind regards,
Mark
--On Friday, February 07, 2014 5:17 PM +0000 Mark Cairney Mark.Cairney@ed.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
Having recently experienced some issues with our Live server (2.4.38, Scientific Linux 6.4 64-bit) I was looking into possible causes and found the following Debian bug report which suggests that BDB 5.X is problematic with OpenLDAP.
Well, there are lots of 5.x releases, you'd need to be more specific than that. I've used BDB 5.2.36 for years w/o issue.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Architect - Server Zimbra, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
On 07/02/2014 17:38, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Friday, February 07, 2014 5:17 PM +0000 Mark Cairney Mark.Cairney@ed.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
Having recently experienced some issues with our Live server (2.4.38, Scientific Linux 6.4 64-bit) I was looking into possible causes and found the following Debian bug report which suggests that BDB 5.X is problematic with OpenLDAP.
Well, there are lots of 5.x releases, you'd need to be more specific than that. I've used BDB 5.2.36 for years w/o issue.
Apologies, I thought I'd stated it in my first email but on reading it back I haven't. It's BDB 5.3.21
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Architect - Server Zimbra, Inc.
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Mark Cairney wrote:
On 07/02/2014 17:38, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Friday, February 07, 2014 5:17 PM +0000 Mark Cairney Mark.Cairney@ed.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
Having recently experienced some issues with our Live server (2.4.38, Scientific Linux 6.4 64-bit) I was looking into possible causes and found the following Debian bug report which suggests that BDB 5.X is problematic with OpenLDAP.
Well, there are lots of 5.x releases, you'd need to be more specific than that. I've used BDB 5.2.36 for years w/o issue.
Apologies, I thought I'd stated it in my first email but on reading it back I haven't. It's BDB 5.3.21
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.
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.
You might be able to revive interest in that ITS by providing a complete test case (config+data) that demonstrates the issue.
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.
--On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:36 AM +0000 Mark Cairney Mark.Cairney@ed.ac.uk wrote:
" 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 ;-)
So build your OpenLAP against a different version of BDB. ;) As I noted, 5.2.36 has worked fine for me for several years. ;)
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.
The primary OpenLDAP author just asked you to contribute more information, so I wouldn't be too concerned about resurrecting the bug...
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Architect - Server Zimbra, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Low Sensitivity/Aerospace Internal Use Only
I noticed that the new OpenLDAP-LTB RPMs for CentOS are dependent on berkeleydb-4.7, but they are failing and referencing berkeleydb-4.6. It's kind of confusing.
Warron French, MBA, SCSA The Aerospace Corporation Sr. UNIX SA & Storage Admin Mailstop: CH1-230 Desk: 571-307-5311 Cell: 703-967-8936
From: Quanah Gibson-Mount quanah@zimbra.com To: Mark Cairney Mark.Cairney@ed.ac.uk, openldap-technical@openldap.org, Date: 02/10/2014 04:09 PM Subject: Re: Recommended version of BDB package Sent by: openldap-technical-bounces@OpenLDAP.org
--On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:36 AM +0000 Mark Cairney Mark.Cairney@ed.ac.uk wrote:
" 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 ;-)
So build your OpenLAP against a different version of BDB. ;) As I noted, 5.2.36 has worked fine for me for several years. ;)
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.
The primary OpenLDAP author just asked you to contribute more information,
so I wouldn't be too concerned about resurrecting the bug...
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Architect - Server Zimbra, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Low Sensitivity/Aerospace Internal Use Only
--On Monday, February 10, 2014 4:33 PM -0500 Warron S French Warron.S.French@aero.org wrote:
Low Sensitivity/Aerospace Internal Use Only
I noticed that the new OpenLDAP-LTB RPMs for CentOS are dependent on berkeleydb-4.7, but they are failing and referencing berkeleydb-4.6. It's kind of confusing.
That sounds like something you should be sending to the LTB project list...
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Architect - Server Zimbra, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Low Sensitivity/Aerospace Internal Use Only
Yeah, I think Clement is aware of it already though.
Warron French, MBA, SCSA The Aerospace Corporation Sr. UNIX SA & Storage Admin Mailstop: CH1-230 Desk: 571-307-5311 Cell: 703-967-8936
From: Quanah Gibson-Mount quanah@zimbra.com To: Warron S French Warron.S.French@aero.org, Cc: openldap-technical@openldap.org Date: 02/10/2014 04:46 PM Subject: Re: Re: Recommended version of BDB package --- Low Sensitivity/Aerospace Internal Use Only
--On Monday, February 10, 2014 4:33 PM -0500 Warron S French Warron.S.French@aero.org wrote:
Low Sensitivity/Aerospace Internal Use Only
I noticed that the new OpenLDAP-LTB RPMs for CentOS are dependent on berkeleydb-4.7, but they are failing and referencing berkeleydb-4.6. It's kind of confusing.
That sounds like something you should be sending to the LTB project list...
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Architect - Server Zimbra, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Low Sensitivity/Aerospace Internal Use Only
2014-02-10 22:48 GMT+01:00 Warron S French Warron.S.French@aero.org:
Low Sensitivity/Aerospace Internal Use Only
Yeah, I think Clement is aware of it already though.
This was fixed yesterday.
Clément.
openldap-technical@openldap.org
-
Clément OUDOT -
Howard Chu -
Mark Cairney -
Quanah Gibson-Mount -
Warron S French