Walt Reed schrieb:
[...]
> Well, it is fast, but I don't know if it's going to be faster than a
> simple mysql DB or berkeley style DB for quick go, no-go types of
> queries (I have not done any performance testing, but I do know that
> simple queries on mysql and berkeley DB's are VERY VERY fast...)
Simple queries on LDAP are VERY VERY fast too. OpenLDAP for example just
has some berkeley DBs, caching and a query engine. There are some
advantages of LDAP over plain DBs (in-memory-caching while DB-access
requires harddisc-activity or a good os-paging-algorithm) as well as
disadvantages (opening a tcp-connection probably is slower than opening
a file). Of course, configuration of the LDAP-daemon is critical and can
easily be done wrong.
In reality I'd only expect a little performance-gain when using a local
DB-file instead of a local LDAP-daemon. If that difference really does
matter, the server probably has reached its limit and I'd seriously
consider adding more hardware.
Nice thing about email: it's very very scalable. :-)
> Remember: the OP was concerned about the LDAP server being down in which
> case the performance of LDAP is going to be exactly zero.
Yes, but the solution should not be to use LDAP to create a db-file on
the mailserver. LDAP has replication included, so the LDAP-way-to-go
would be to install an LDAP-daemon on the mail-server and enable
replication.
However, I'm getting really off-topic now.
--
CU,
Patrick.
