I am upgrading the openldap servers and ran into a bit of a problem.
SASL/GSSAPI binds to the new server are too slow. An ldapsearch to the
old server using GSSAPI to bind is much faster on the old server then
the same search on the new server.
I am not even sure where to start to debug this and
Update:
We are using Centos 5. A mixture of Centos 5\.[23457]. Our
Ldap server is Centos Directory Server. I'm constantly seeing Can't talk
to LDAP server.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Ezra Taylor ezra.tay...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello All:
Is there a difference
Hi Angel,
you might want to post feature requests (after double checking that the
feature does not already exists) to the ITS
(http://www.openldap.org/its/). This list is, as Howard made quite
clear, not the right place.
Technical discussions can be made on openldap-technical.
Although it is
On 12 August 2012 20:24, Jeff Dickens j...@seamanpaper.com wrote:
Thanks, I will certainly do that in the future. So is there a way to
recalculate the checksum on my config as it is now, so that I can get back to
normal?
slapcat it, check it and make any edits needed, then delete what's in
Dear Quanah,
Thank you for your generous help.
On 21/08/12 07:32 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:03 PM +1000 Nick Urbanik
nick.urba...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Dear Folks,
I'm upgrading a cluster of OpenLDAP servers from 2.3.43-25.el5 to
2.4.32 with BDB
On 21/08/12 14:27 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:15 AM +1000 Nick Urbanik
ni...@nicku.org wrote:
I would strongly advise examining using a shared memory key for that
DB as well.
Okay: I could create that with a command like
ipcmk -M 16777216
*No*.
Dear Quanah,
Thank you again. You are most generous!
On 21/08/12 14:40 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:37 AM +1000 Nick Urbanik
ni...@nicku.org wrote:
On 21/08/12 14:27 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:15 AM +1000 Nick
Dear Chris,
Thank you for taking the time to write.
My question however remains: we have eight busy LDAP slaves. Should
they all slave from both masters?
Or should they slave from the VIP (virtual IP that goes to only one
server on the basis of health checks)?
I completely understand that
We have a situation where all the LDAP client OS runs with RHEL V5.7 and
LDAP Server should be in master-master configuration. We can't have the
OpenLDAP servers at RHEL V5.7 as multi master configuration is
introduced only from RHEL V6 (OpenLDAP V2.4 support).
To achieve this we decided to
Hello, Quanah,
I do not understand the irritation. I have read the changes.html file
and I do not see any entry saying fixed Multi-Master replication as it
was totally damned. UPGRADE NOW OR YOUR DATA WILL GO DOWN.
The truth that I have subscribed to this list because of seeing a
similar
Le 03/09/2012 22:45, Quanah Gibson-Mount a écrit :
--On Monday, September 03, 2012 3:52 PM +0200 Guillaume Rousse
guillomovi...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't change ldap version easily, and I'd rather return to classic
master-slave setup if the problem is not fixable otherwise.
I would advise
Nikolai Schupbach wrote:
We are testing the mdb backend (OpenLDAP 2.4.32) with FreeBSD 8.3 x64 -
when we try to start slapd or populate it with slapadd we get the following
error:
This is ITS#7363, fixed in RE24.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Thanks Howard - I can confirm that patch fixed the issue.
Regards,
Nikolai Schupbach
On 5/09/2012, at 1:23 AM, Howard Chu wrote:
Nikolai Schupbach wrote:
We are testing the mdb backend (OpenLDAP 2.4.32) with FreeBSD 8.3 x64 -
when we try to start slapd or populate it with slapadd we get the
--On Tuesday, September 04, 2012 12:12 PM +0200 Guillaume Rousse
guillomovi...@gmail.com wrote:
I did, of course.
However, just the number of issues isn't enough to distinguish between
corner-case and immediate issues. Given than I've been running ldap
server 2.4.19 in multi-master modes for
--On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:39 PM -0600 Matthew B. Brookover
mbroo...@mines.edu wrote:
When using an anonymous bind, the old server takes longer then the new
server -- which is what I would expect given that the new server has
twice the number of faster processors and double the memory
--On Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:20 AM +0200 ballock
boleslaw.tokar...@tieto.com wrote:
Hello, Quanah,
I do not understand the irritation. I have read the changes.html file and
I do not see any entry saying fixed Multi-Master replication as it was
totally damned. UPGRADE NOW OR YOUR DATA
16 matches
Mail list logo
