And to you thanks. Can i offer small patch for realization of comparison
(!~) in rlm_checkval?
--- rlm_checkval.c 2005-12-14 03:38:08.0 +1000
+++ rlm_checkval.c.patched 2005-12-14 10:15:59.0 +1000
@@ -208,6 +208,7 @@
VALUE_PAIR *chk_vp, *item_vp;
Dimple wrote:
I installed latest freeradius cvs-snapshot freeradius-snapshot-20051130 on
Debian Linux 10 vs Oracle db 10 and Oracle Internet Directory (LDAP) 10. I
have about 30 clients in clients.conf and about 30 connections in a second,
including accounting requests. I have 8G RAM on
Thanks, I have tried Valgrind. Valgrind have given out as a result of 20
losses and possible losses of memory. Basically from several bytes up to 200
kbytes for 30 seconds of work. The largest following.
...
...
...
==8528== 11032016 (72220 direct, 10959796 indirect) bytes in 785 blocks are
By the way, rlm_checkval meets in most cases losses
==8528== 200448 bytes in 783 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 178
of 190
...
==8528==by 0x1BB83E41: regcomp (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.2.so)
==8528==by 0x1D310FC3: do_checkval (rlm_checkval.c:275)
...
==8528== 60416 bytes in 59
Hi everyone,
I installed latest freeradius cvs-snapshot freeradius-snapshot-20051130 on
Debian Linux 10 vs Oracle db 10 and Oracle Internet Directory (LDAP) 10. I
have about 30 clients in clients.conf and about 30 connections in a second,
including accounting requests. I have 8G RAM on server and
Dimple [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I installed latest freeradius cvs-snapshot freeradius-snapshot-20051130 on
Debian Linux 10 vs Oracle db 10 and Oracle Internet Directory (LDAP) 10. I
have about 30 clients in clients.conf and about 30 connections in a second,
including accounting requests. I
6 matches
Mail list logo