David Boreham wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
>
> I really wish Net::LDAP would just go away and die. People should be
> using Mozilla::LDAP (or Net::LDAPapi), particularly when they're
> doing timing measurements. I guess as a monitoring device to say "is
> it alive" it's not too crucial, but you have to realize that when it
> says it measures the response time of the LDAP server, 99% of the
> measured time is actually perl execution, and only 1% is actual
> network+LDAP time. (That's not an exaggeration; there is a clear
> 100:1 difference in execution time between Net::LDAP and
> Mozilla::LDAP / Net::LDAPapi.)
Still, a pure Perl solution is nice from an integration perspective.
But even
Net::LDAP is not entirely perl - the SSL bits call out to
openssl via Net::SSLeay. There may be other C bits called as well.
Is either Mozilla::LDAP or Net::LDAPapi shipped with a popular
Linux distribution today ?
Not yet.
In an application like Cacti, the service response time measurement is
really aimed at detecting an overloaded service (hence requests queue
and response time becomes very high). So I'm not sure a few ms matters
one way or the other.
btw I'd vote for more effort put in to making the Python LDAP support
better and more widely distributed -- Perl itself is evil (IMHO of
course).
python-ldap++
--
Fedora-directory-users mailing list
Fedora-directory-users(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users