[Beowulf] Poll - Directory implementation

[Michael Di Domenico]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:35 PM Ryan Novosielski <novosirj at rutgers.edu> wrote:
> On 10/24/2018 01:30 PM, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
> > On 10/24/2018 01:13 PM, Michael Di Domenico wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:04 PM Ryan Novosielski
> >> <novosirj at rutgers.edu> wrote:
> >>> Funny, we are considering the exact opposite, and this is our
> >>> motivation:
> >>>
> >>> https://access.redhat.com/solutions/2440481
> >
> >> we're contemplating the same, but we're okay with switching back
> >> to the openldap source.  in my opinion redhat deprecating
> >> openldap is just a money grab to push people towards rhds
> >
> > I don't have an alternate theory, but 389-ds is free, and I guess
> > I imagined "comparable." I suppose if it's not as capable as
> > OpenLDAP and RHDS is, that would make sense. But maybe they just
> > want to push people toward something where there's an easy path?
> >
> > People saying that 389-ds is slow is not encouraging, given that
> > we're currently attempting to tune OpenLDAP to be less slow.

i don't want to diverge this thread from the OP, but how fast does
ldap really need to be?  i have ~700 machines talking to two openldap
servers w/ ssl enabled.  we have to run nslcd on the clients, but all
is well