Re: [389-users] [389][Active Directory] Replication issue

and I would like to probe that some changes had been made in AD and replicated to 389DS. Regards, Moses. 2014-04-15 15:44 GMT+02:00 Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com: On 04/15/2014 03:23 AM, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote: I think there have been a misunderstood. The problem isn't

Re: [389-users] [389][Active Directory] Replication issue

the trailing whitespace is not visible. I'm not sure how to get around that myself. Steven Crothers steven.croth...@gmail.com On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/14/2014 02:49 AM, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote: Hello, Unfortunately in our

[389-users] [389][Active Directory] Replication issue

Hello, Unfortunately in our organization we have a replication agreement between 389 DS and an Active Directory. For some reason, some Active Directory admin has run a script which has change the givenname and sn attrs (now they are in base64) and that change have been replicated to the

Re: [389-users] DS performance settings while multi-mastering

I guess the caches can be different always their values be upper the required for a correct performance in all the machines. Regards, Moses 2013/2/21 Patrick Raspante patrickraspa...@gmail.com Is it required (or at least suggested) that multi-mastered directory server instances have the

[389-users] Difference between Start and End Replication Request

Hi, I have passed the lofconv.pl script and get a difference between the Start and End Replication Request. Does it make sense? - Extended Operations - 11874 2.16.840.1.113730.3.5.3 Start Replication Request (incremental update) 79622.16.840.1.113730.3.5.5 End

Re: [389-users] Difference between Start and End Replication Request

. So it can be quite normal that start and end requests are not balanced. Ludwig On 01/02/2013 10:47 AM, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote: Hi, I have passed the lofconv.pl script and get a difference between the Start and End Replication Request. Does it make sense? - Extended Operations

Re: [389-users] SO kills ns-ldapd because of memory usage

What do you think about change the OS overcommit_memory to 2 instead of 0??? Moses 2012/11/26 Moisés Barba Pérez mbarpe...@gmail.com Hi, This is the end of graph I have get whit the command (while true; do ps -o 'vsz,rss' PID; sleep 60; done). Looks like there is not a big increase

Re: [389-users] SO kills ns-ldapd because of memory usage

=monitor currententrycachesize to monitor the usage of the entrycache. But be aware that the process uses more memory than just the caches and the memory manager can also generate some overhead. Regards, Ludwig On 11/15/2012 02:55 PM, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote: yes, thats correct

[389-users] SO kills ns-ldapd because of memory usage

Hi, I have a memory issue with 389-ds 1.2.5 in a CentOS 5.5 64bits 4GB ram. The server swaps when the server physical memory increase over 75% approx. When the swap is full the server reaches 100% of physical memory and the SO kills the ns-ldapd process. Out of memory: Killed process 30383, UID

[389-users] Issue with schema replication

Hi, I'm upgrading one 389DS machine from 1.2.5 to 1.2.10.7 and I have found a problem when replicate the schema from another 1.2.5 DS machine. I had created an attribute like this: attributeTypes: ( OIDXXX NAME 'x' DESC 'y' SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{1024}

Re: [389-users] Several questions

Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com On 04/30/2012 01:01 AM, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote: Hi, you are absolutely right and I can understand that behaviour with syntax. The thing is: I want to recover the original syntax, the 02common one, how can I do that? I can't use replace obviously, add

Re: [389-users] Several questions

. Any idea about how to change this to case-insensitive??? Regards, Moses 2012/4/27 Noriko Hosoi nho...@redhat.com Hi Moisés, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote: Hi, I have replaced the OID and now there is no syntax error. The ticket is https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/349. Thanks! I have

Re: [389-users] Several questions

??? How can I solve this??? Regards, Moses. El 26 de abril de 2012 20:41, Noriko Hosoi nho...@redhat.com escribió: Moisés Barba Pérez wrote: Hi, I have several questions about syntax and attributes, hope you can help me. - Why the attribute mail in DS is case sensitive?? Is there any

[389-users] Several questions

Hi, I have several questions about syntax and attributes, hope you can help me. - Why the attribute mail in DS is case sensitive?? Is there any problem changing it to non case sensitive? If there is no problem, how can I modify it? - I have a problem whit the syntax of the nsViewFilter

[389-users] Error in logmaxdiskspace config

Hi, I'm trying to set the logmaxdiskspace to -1 (infinite) whit this another parameters: nsslapd-accesslog-maxlogsperdir: 100 nsslapd-accesslog-maxlogsize: 100 nsslapd-accesslog-logrotationtimeunit: day nsslapd-accesslog-logrotationtime:1 nsslapd-accesslog-logrotationsync-enable: on

[389-users] Log rotate question

Hi, I would like to configure the errors, access and audit logs to rotate every day at 00:00, regardless of the current size of the log, I would like to rotate them in files of 100MB each one, and finally, not to limit the number of log files. The thing is: 1.- To rotate every day at 00:00 I

[389-users] Configure access log

*HI, I'm doing a backup for mi access logs in several ldap servers and I have found that some of this logs have been deleted because of rotation info. The thing is, I want to save all the access log generated in a day in files of 100MB. I have searched the way to do it and now I have to set

[389-users] 389 Memory issue

Hi, I'm having a memory issue with 389 Directory server. The problem *cannot allocate memory* appears very often and don't find the source. The exactly log is this: memory allocator - malloc of 4629376 bytes failed; OS error 12 (Cannot allocate memory) The server has probably allocated