Adam Tauno Williams awilliam at
Wed Sep 22 09:30:03 EDT 2010

On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 15:04 +0200, Simon Matter 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.
> Fine, that may all be true. But I never ever heard someone going from BDB
> to skiplist only and coming back because he had any performance issues.

True; and we moved to Skiplist, and no BDB, a long time ago.

I was just answering the question "why is BDB still used then?".  It may
be some degree faster, but IMO isn't worth the agony of figuring out BDB

> Maybe it doesn't matter so much with Cyrus and we should try to find out
> what is "Poetry and Truth"? If BDB is not really required for Cyrus it
> could be made optional for those who really want it.
> BTW, it's even worse than Bron said. You not only get errors in the logs
> even without using any BDB, you can also end up with a broken BDB
> environment which prevents Cyrus from starting up :)

More information about the Info-cyrus mailing list