ktm at rice.edu
Wed Sep 22 09:03:33 EDT 2010
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:27:11PM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On 22/09/2010, at 22:17, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:44 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 22 September 2010 13:47:26 Jeffrey T Eaton wrote:
> >> <snipped>
> >> I am probably missing some info here, but....
> >>> And, as Bron has said, there's something wrong with the way Cyrus uses BDB.
> >>> I've never been able to understand BDB well enough to figure it out
> >>> myself, nor have I ever found anyone who can help. For what its worth, I
> >>> solved the problem by not using BDB at all on the Cyrus systems I used.
> >> If it is possible to not use BDB, and BDB causes problems with upgrades, why
> >> is BDB still used then?
> > BDB is wicked fast and scales well. At least that is the typical
> > argument in defense of BDB. And given the stellar performance one sees
> > from OpenLDAP I'm prone to believing it.
> I'm not sure it's Cyrus, I see issues with OpenLDAP and BDB too.
> On a bad shutdown it requires admin intervention very frequently which is pretty tedious.
> And yes, upgrading it is also a PITA.
That is why we moved to skiplist. The server would require manual
intervention to even restart after certain types of system events.
It is hard to explain why mail was unavailable for 30+mins. when
the server rebooted in 2mins. BDB would need to be much, much
easier to manage and be more robust for us to use.
More information about the Info-cyrus