On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 10:08:06AM +0100, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
>Installing from packages where details of all packages are kept in a
>database gives gives many huge advantages, this is recognized by most,
>if not all, major OS vendors. I, too, was once too lazy (or ignorant) to
>learn to build
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 05:45:06PM -0700, Maria McKinley wrote:
> maude:/etc/ldap# slapadd -v -l ldif
>
> got no error messages, restarted slapd, tried to search on something
> that should be there, but couldn't find it:
>
> maude:/etc/ldap# ldapsearch -x "uid=ichbin"
Typically you specify the ba
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 08:24:08AM -0500, Adam Williams wrote:
> I'm trying to add a group with 2 users to LDAP, but i'm running into
> problems. When I add my group and then search for it, it shows a
> userPassword, and garbles the memberUid of the first user I added to the
> group. Any idea
Gentoo with a 2.6.5 kernel, glibc 2.3.3, openldap 2.1.30. It's doing
this on 4 identical systems and 1 with a 2.6.9 kernel, so my
configuration is somehow very wrong.
System setup: admin1 is the master and replicates out to ldap1 and
ldap2. Directory listings are at the end of the email.
Last
Howard Chu wanted us to know:
>Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
>> You may also split the database in smaller bits, unless it has to be
>> exactly one naming context (I don't recall if 2.1 already had the
>> glue capability).
>
>Yes, glue in 2.1 was the groundwork for overlays in 2.2.
>
>>> Gentoo with
Todd Lyons wanted us to know:
>>>> Last night, an ldap server died with the (non-exact) error unable
>>>> to write to gdbm. The id2entry.gdbm file was a byte below 2 Gigs.
>>>> In subsequent testing with dd, I cannot create a file bigger than
>>>&g
Matty wanted us to know:
>I added several new reports (operations by hour of day, operations by day
>of month, operations by month) to ldap-stats.pl, and thought this might be
>useful for the LDAP administrators on the list. You can download
>ldap-stats.pl from the following location:
>http://d
matthew sporleder wanted us to know:
>Is it possible/safe to run a database without any indexes with 2.2 and ldbm?
>My database is, basically, write-only and it would safe a lot of I/O
>to eliminate the indexing.
Ok, so you save a little I/O on the indexing.
How many entries will be in this dire
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:35:01PM +0100, T M wrote:
>todd:
>this is what i do:
>ldapadd -f file.ldif -x -w pass -D cn=Manager,dc=ireas,dc=cz
>and it says:
>adding new entry "cn=Ryvolová Ivana,[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>ldap_add: Server is unwilling to perform (53)
>additional info: no global sup
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:26:40AM +0100, T M wrote:
>structure of directory? what do you mean? im pasting both conf files:
The rootdn.
>/etc/openldap/ldap.conf
>suffix "dc=ireas,dc=cz"
As in this above.
>> >adding new entry "cn=Ryvolová Ivana,[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>> >ldap_add: Server is
Bringing this back on the mailing list...
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:46:50PM +0100, T M wrote:
>hi,
>im sorry but im not a linux guru and i really dont understand what you mean by
>> Change what you're trying to add so that everything is under your rootdn
>> and it should start to work.
>
>could
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 09:45:30AM -0400, Russell Handorf wrote:
>Just as a quick bit of history, MySQL support is necessary because of
>our MTA. All the user accounts and related settings are currently being
>stored in this system for email auth. Currently, users have to maintain
>2 passwords
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:17:47PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>>>alock is an autorecovery mechanism introduced in the OpenLDAP 2.3
>>>release to assist with autorecovery. Given more information on the
>>>error messages coming from alock would be useful, since it is supposed
>>>to help yo
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 04:13:41PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>>Ah, that's good to know. I upgraded an old 2.1.30 production server to
>>2.3.21 with bdb 4.3 and the load went through the roof, searches were
>>blindingly slow, etc. I'm rolling back to 2.2.30 right now with db 4.2.
>>We'll
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:56:22PM -0700, Todd Lyons wrote:
>>BDB 4.3 is a known problem release. The suggested BDB release is
>>4.2.52+patches, and possible BDB 4.4.20+patches. But not BDB 4.3.anything.
>Ah, that's good to know. I upgraded an old 2.1.30 production server
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 06:24:55PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>>No, it didn't fix the speed problem. When using the ldbm backend, the
>>machine sits at load around 0.1 and 2% or 3% cpu usage. I switch to bdb
>>backend and my load jumps to 14 or so, searches take seconds to complete
>>(of
16 matches
Mail list logo
