Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:12:57 -0400
> From: "Vampire D" <vampired@xxxxxxxxx>
I heard it from Cisco when working with them on a project as they claims it
> has a hard time keeping up under a heavy load.
In my experience, the Cisco folks don't have a clue what they're talking about.
We recently had a customer come to us asking why OpenLDAP doesn't support
LDAPv3 (it does; it has since 2000), saying their Cisco product wasn't able to
Bind to OpenLDAP. Cisco of course claimed they were supporting LDAPv3 correctly
and that the OpenLDAP server was defective, but we asked the customer for a
network trace and they saw that the Cisco product was actually sending an
LDAPv2 Bind request. Your mileage may vary of course, but it's best to take
anything Cisco says about LDAP with a large helping of salt.
>>On 7/16/07, Norman Gaywood <ngaywood@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 7/13/07, Vampire D <vampired@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > As I understand it, OpenLDAP doesn't perform all that well under a high
> > load. How does FDS perform in comparison to other LDAP implmentations
> like
> > OpenLDAP and Sun?
>
> Interesting. Where did you get the information that OpenLDAP does not
> perform under load? I was always under the impression that OpenLDAP
> was the fastest and most scalable LDAP server around. For example:
>
> http://www.symas.com/benchmark-auth.shtml
>
> I recall reading another benchmark somewhere comparing it with FDS but
> can't find it at the moment.
>
> --
> Norman Gaywood, Systems Administrator
> University of New England, Armidale,
> NSW 2351, Australia
>
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
--
Fedora-directory-users mailing list
Fedora-directory-users@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
