Re: why use ldap?
- From: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:48:22 -0600
On 12/09/08 10:30, mikegws@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I see a lot of people using ldap in place of a "Big Aliases DB" and I'm wondering why people have gone this route.
It just seems that if there is an outage with LDAP you're SOL and mail routing falls apart.
Even if LDAP is highly available and always there - does it really make sense to have this much overhead?
What other advantages do I have to using LDAP?
I think this can be summed up as a "fried" verses "baked" approach. The "(big) aliases db" approach is "baked" as in it is prepared ahead of time. Where as the "ldap" approach is "fried" as it is check every time a message needs to be routed.
Thus the differences really fall down to the pros and cons of each approach. "Backed" usually has less over head but there is update latency associated with it. Where as "fried" has more overhead but is much closer (if not) real time.
There is also the fact that LDAP is usually used by things other than / in addition to email. Thus it could be said that email with LDAP is utilizing the existing infrastructure where as email with aliases db is using its own additional (independently updated) infrastructure.
Grant. . . .
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why use ldap?
- From: mikegws@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: why use ldap?
- References:
- why use ldap?
- From: mikegws@xxxxxxxxx
- why use ldap?
- Prev by Date: why use ldap?
- Next by Date: Regex Matching Not Working?
- Previous by thread: why use ldap?
- Next by thread: Re: why use ldap?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
