[ILUG] ldap vs. nis...

[Paul Jakma]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, John P. Looney wrote:

>  Has nss_ldap got any better ? Is it possible to cache such information,
> for instance ?

hmm rethinking...

in my post i said: "don't ever run nss_ldap .. and sendmail ... that
processes ... amount of email". now i said this cause when i tried it
ages and ages ago, the load on the machine in question would go
through the roof when i dialled in the evening and fetchmail started
cranking the days mail through, and sendmail was doing get{pw,gr}ent()
for each email - each get*ent() call involves the LDAP server
iterating over and sending out the entire list of objects/attrs
corresponding to passwd and group in LDAP.

so i'd have a machine with a whole bunch of sendmails blocked waiting
for a response from the glibc waiting on the LDAP server, and
fetchmail punting in new mails faster than it was being delivered (due
to the LDAP / get*ent()).

however, however, however... i have a feeling that i might have
recently enabled nss_ldap on my home dialup/mail/nfs server again -
but i'm not having any problems with load. (in the meantime i would
have upgraded nss_ldap and openldap quite a few times, as my desktop
is dependent on it).

i'll have to check when i get in tonight...

if i do have nss_ldap configured on that machine, then yes: ldap
2.0.{10,11} and nss_ldap have gotten a lot faster.

> Kate

--paulj