p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk
Tue Dec 11 10:56:53 CET 2012
On 12/10/2012 03:27 PM, John Dennis wrote:
> On 12/09/2012 07:33 PM, Arran Cudbard-Bell wrote:
>> Just pushed up a few patches to add LDAP accounting.
> Just out of curiosity why are we adding support for "worst practice",
> shouldn't we be encouraging "best practice" via the choice of supported
> Maintaining accounting data in LDAP is an abuse of the LDAP design goals
> of "frequent lookup, infrequent modification". Databases were designed
> for the type of data management that radius accounting involves,
> directories were not. Accounting should be in a database, not a
> directory. Directories were designed to solve different problems.
This is a bit OT, but I'm honestly curious here...
I've heard this sort of general statement about directories
(specifically LDAP) being suitable for read-heavy workloads, and SQL
being suitable for read/write-heavy, for well over 15 years now.
No-one has ever adequately explained to me *why* sending an LDAP write
op PDU is somehow different than sending an LDAP read op PDU.
It may be that all or most LDAP *implementations* are relatively slow at
writes, but if so, it doesn't follow that this *must* be the case.
Obviously writes are slower than reads in LDAP, but that's true of
almost any datastore backed by permanent storage. However, having done
mass/bulk LDAP updates to OpenLDAP (and on older versions) I've found it
pretty snappy. So I'd love to know why this is an "abuse" any more than
using any other protocol in unanticipated-but-compliant ways.
More information about the Freeradius-Devel