severity 304735 normal
thanks
Hi folks,
Since slapd 2.2.23-8 has been accepted into the archive with the code to
convert ldbm directories to bdb on upgrade, I believe this bug is no longer
RC. The remaining issues here, which are variously requests for slapd to
support a working ldbm backend or
Hello,
Monday is nearly over here and neither today nor over the weekend
any corruption or inconsistencies were observed (and I checked
each record that was modified in the last 3 days).
So using BDB instead of LDBM indeed seems to have fixed things for
me.
I guess the choice as far as the
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:30:33PM +0900, Christian Balzer wrote:
[backend used]
See above, LDBM (whatever actual DB that defaults to these days).
Sorry, I missed that. I would strongly encourage you to switch to BDB,
which is the recommended backend for OpenLDAP 2.2;
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:52:39PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I loathe BDB for the times it takes for massive adds/modifies.
Even with slapadd, which takes about 2 minutes to load the entire DB
using ldbm as backend, but about 50 minutes with BDB.
OpenLDAP 2.2 includes a '-q' option to
Hi Christian,
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:57:48PM +0900, Christian Balzer wrote:
I will monitor this over the weekend and see if the problem persists,
goes away or (heavens forbid) mutates.
Thanks.
Not matter the outcome of this though, the severity of this bug report
remains the same.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:09:19PM +0900, Christian Balzer wrote:
I urge you (in case this can't be fixed in a time frame of 1-2 days)
to back out this update and revert to the previous version.
Not easy to do after this has propagated to testing.
If this LDAP DB would be the canonical one
Hello,
just a quick reply to the 3 mails from Torsten.
a) will try to ride this out with BDB and slapd 2.2.23 for the moment
and make the call if this is working or not on Monday. So far no
corruption, but also just a few modify actions. If it fails as well,
I might indeed need an old
Package: slapd
Version: 2.2.23-1 (sarge)
Severity: critical
This is basically the same as #303826 (why this got classified as normal
and 2.2.23 got pushed into sarge is beyond me).
I have a LARGE (60k users) users/mailsettings database in LDAP,
on two identical servers running sarge.
They
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:09:19PM +0900, Christian Balzer wrote:
This is basically the same as #303826 (why this got classified as normal
and 2.2.23 got pushed into sarge is beyond me).
I have a LARGE (60k users) users/mailsettings database in LDAP,
on two identical servers running sarge.
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:09:19PM +0900, Christian Balzer wrote:
Changes are generated by ldifsort.pl/ldifdiff.pl and then applied with
ldapmodify for a low impact and smooth operation, using ldbm as
backend.
The previous version of slapd *also* had corruption issues,
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:30:33PM +0900, Christian Balzer wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:09:19PM +0900, Christian Balzer wrote:
Changes are generated by ldifsort.pl/ldifdiff.pl and then applied with
ldapmodify for a low impact and smooth operation, using ldbm
11 matches
Mail list logo
