ntdb for Samba 4.2?

Jeremy Allison jra at samba.org
Thu Mar 20 10:19:58 MDT 2014

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 07:48:21AM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> On 2014-03-20 at 13:44 +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks for the update.  
> > 
> > My view is that it was unfortunate that the dbwrap path was taken,
> > rather than transitioning to the tdb2 API on tdb, and then tdb2, but
> > that boat has sailed.  I agree that dbwrap has shown itself to be a dead
> > end in terms of a practical way to transition the whole project between
> > databases - it covers many, but far from all the databases. 
> Well, I don't quite get your point here:
> Firstly, dbwrap is the perfect vehicle we have to switch
> between database backends that vaguely resemble the tdb API.
> Of course this requires our code to be converted to dbwrap,
> but that project stalled once we decided not to take ntdb
> for 4.0 (and not vice versa).
> Secondly, an important point to note thought, is that this conversion
> would also have been required by your way of first converting
> tdb to the tdb2 api! But then you would not have had the
> chance to switch one DB at a time, but all in one stroke.
> And then, there were good reasons not to take ntdb for
> 4.0, namely the findings in the performance area that led
> to significant restructurings in the code very shortly before
> the release of 4.0.
> After the release of 4.0, the resons we originally had to
> start the tdb2/ntdb project somehow became less important,
> like the size limitation (less important due to data format
> changes and improved vacuuming in the cluster case).
> I think this is mainly, why the ntdb project has not been
> driven further, even though there are many good things
> in the new code/api.

Yes, I am also a fan of dbwrap. If we wanted to use
*any* different backend API we'd first need to transition
to a backend-independent version.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list