Re: Distributing and replicating Schema.

2006-04-27 Thread Dmitriy Kirhlarov
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:11:55PM -0300, Andres Tarallo wrote: > We find that syncrepl could do the job, however it seems to us that it yes > could left some changes on hold (ie: password changes) until is Use type=refreshAndPersist WBR -- Dmitriy Kirhlarov OILspace, 26 Leninskaya sloboda, bl

Re: load balancer with SSL

2006-04-27 Thread Jeremiah Martell
I can do an ldapsearch over SSL and non-SSL directly to one of the "behind the load balancer" LDAP servers. I can do an ldapsearch over non-SSL to the load balancer, but SSL to the load balancer fails - it looks like SSL connects fine, but nothing happens after that. Im going to add some logging a

Re: multiple subordinates and shm_key - not a good idea

2006-04-27 Thread matthew sporleder
On 4/26/06, Howard Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > matthew sporleder wrote: > > I am using openldap 2.3.21 and bdb 4.4.20 (both compiled 64-bit) on solaris > > 10. > > > > It seems that using multiple shm_keys in slapd.conf with many > > subordinate databases results in unusable data. I'm about

Re: multiple subordinates and shm_key - not a good idea

2006-04-27 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
Quoting matthew sporleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So my questions so far: > So is this a bug because I'm using bdb4.4.20? Possibly. I note that the recommended version of BDB remains at 4.2.52+patches. 4.4.20+ has looked promissing so far. > Should I just add db_recover to my init script? I t

Re: multiple subordinates and shm_key - not a good idea

2006-04-27 Thread matthew sporleder
On 4/27/06, Quanah Gibson-Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting matthew sporleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > So my questions so far: > > So is this a bug because I'm using bdb4.4.20? > > Possibly. I note that the recommended version of BDB remains at > 4.2.52+patches. 4.4.20+ has looked pr

Re: multiple subordinates and shm_key - not a good idea

2006-04-27 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
Quoting matthew sporleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On my systems, at least, OpenLDAP does handle this correctly. However, > I am > > only using a single shared memory segment, and I'm using BDB 4.2.52. > > > > Based off the configuration you sent in, I'm not exactly clear why you > set > > up so

Re: multiple subordinates and shm_key - not a good idea

2006-04-27 Thread matthew sporleder
On 4/27/06, Quanah Gibson-Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting matthew sporleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On my systems, at least, OpenLDAP does handle this correctly. However, > > I am > > > only using a single shared memory segment, and I'm using BDB 4.2.52. > > > > > > Based off the c

Re: requesting clarification of slapd.conf-versus-slapd.d configuration

2006-04-27 Thread Eric Irrgang
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Howard Chu wrote: >Regardless of any existing config directory, when both flags are >specified, the slapd.conf file is read and written out in config >directory format. If there were any other conditions on the behavior, it >would say so. Since there is not, it does not. With

Re: requesting clarification of slapd.conf-versus-slapd.d configuration

2006-04-27 Thread Howard Chu
Eric Irrgang wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Howard Chu wrote: Regardless of any existing config directory, when both flags are specified, the slapd.conf file is read and written out in config directory format. If there were any other conditions on the behavior, it would say so. Since there is n

Re: multiple subordinates and shm_key - not a good idea

2006-04-27 Thread matthew sporleder
On 4/27/06, matthew sporleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/27/06, Quanah Gibson-Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quoting matthew sporleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > On my systems, at least, OpenLDAP does handle this correctly. However, > > > I am > > > > only using a single shared

Re: multiple subordinates and shm_key - not a good idea

2006-04-27 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
Quoting matthew sporleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 4/27/06, matthew sporleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, my initial read testing showed equal performance for shm vs > non-sham (mmap?). And my write test didn't seem to be working at all, > but that could be something with how I tried to

RE: multiple subordinates and shm_key - not a good idea

2006-04-27 Thread Matthew Hardin
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-openldap- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of matthew sporleder > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:15 AM > To: Quanah Gibson-Mount > Cc: OpenLDAP Software List > Subject: Re: multiple subordinates and shm_key - not a good idea > >

Re: requesting clarification of slapd.conf-versus-slapd.d configuration

2006-04-27 Thread Howard Chu
Eric Irrgang wrote: ... Which brings me back to my real question of how to best backup and restore the configuration. I can't get "slapadd -n0 -l config.ldif" to work as a recovery procedure. Without specifying '-f' or '-F', slapadd consults the slapd.conf installed with the software and tries

Re: requesting clarification of slapd.conf-versus-slapd.d configuration

2006-04-27 Thread Eric Irrgang
Okay... Maybe I should be asking instead what you consider "best practice" for maintaining a configuration with OL2.3. At this point it sounds like every change to slapd.conf warrants removal of both slapd.d and DB_CONFIG. That's fine, if maintaining configuration in slapd.conf is the way to go, t