On 11/12/12 11:31, Kostas Kalevras wrote:
It's not an abuse but mainly not 'best-practice'. A well configured LDAP
I hate that phrase. No offence, but it's often used as a substitute for critical thinking. *Everything* that is best practice eventually... isn't. And usually, it turns out that the "new" best practice was around for ages before anyone realised it. Case in point: RADIUS is used for things which the original designers couldn't have anticipated, and for which, arguably, it's not terribly well designed. But it *works*.
server with enough cache memory will be bottlenecked by memory and network speed and not by underlying I/O. A frequent writes strategy invalidates most of these performance gains since an entry write will invalidate entry and database cache entries.
Really? Why? LDAP doesn't provide MVCC semantics. As far as I can see, an LDAP update contains all the information required to update (not invalidate) in-RAM cache. To be clear: I don't use LDAP for data storage. I dislike it's data model, and the data typing in particular. But I don't see any reason it should be consigned to the "read-mostly" bin on a *theoretical* basis.