Re: Dynamically managed groups, etc

David Coutadeur wrote:
>=20
> Thank you Howard (and openldap core team) for this synthesis of the cur=
rent and future state of dynamic membership devs.
>=20
> Indeed, some of my customers were suffering from dynlist performances, =
and the decision was taken to go back to more static features (like membe=
rOf).
>=20
> For now I did not test nestgroup overlay, but I'll give a look for next=
 installations. Do you have any idea in which version of OpenLDAP nestgro=
up will be
> officially released?

Most likely 2.7 later this year. But I see no reason why it wouldn't work=
 in 2.5/2.6.
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
>=20
> Le 26/02/2024 =C3=A0 16:54, Howard Chu a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
>> The recent work on expanding dynamic group functionality in the dynlis=
t overlay seems to have been
>> a bad idea. It makes an already fairly complex overlay even more compl=
icated, and it puts a lot more
>> work into the read side of operations, which adds up to quite noticeab=
le slowdowns in search performance
>> on deployments that make heavy use of dynamic groups with large member=
ships.



--=20
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/