Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
inconsistent!
Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 100111 local6.debug]
slapd starting
Can I get a status on alock for LDBM?
According to:
http://www.openldap
(You'd think I would know by now)
I'm running openldap 2.3.21, bdb 4.4.20, and solaris 10.
On 4/12/06, matthew sporleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
> ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
> inconsistent!
>
--On Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:33 PM -0400 matthew sporleder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
inconsistent!
Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 100111 local6
matthew sporleder wrote:
Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
inconsistent!
Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 100111 local6.debug]
slapd starting
Can I get a status on alock for LDBM?
Accord
> > Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
> > ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
> > inconsistent!
> > Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 100111 local6.debug]
> > slapd starting
> >
> >
> > Can I get a status on alock for LDBM?
> >
--On Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:10 PM -0400 matthew sporleder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
> ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
> inconsistent!
> Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 10011
> > Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
> > ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
> > inconsistent!
> > Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 100111 local6.debug]
> > slapd starting
> >
> >
> > Can I get a status on alock for LDBM?
> >
> >> > Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
> >> > ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
> >> > inconsistent!
> >> > Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 100111 local6.debug]
> >> > slapd starting
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Can I get a status
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 16:18 -0400, matthew sporleder wrote:
> I wasn't aware that LDBM was susceptible to the same inconsistencies
> as BDB. I thought the lack of transactions/checkpointing prevented
> this. And if this situation did occur, I thought 2.3 was smart enough
> to try fixing itself.
--On Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:18 PM -0400 matthew sporleder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
> ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
> inconsistent!
> Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 10011
--On Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:54 PM +0200 Pierangelo Masarati
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure there's no binary
compatibility between database files created by OpenLDAP 2.1 and
OpenLDAP 2.3; in general, you shouldn't expect anything like that
--On Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:39 PM -0400 matthew sporleder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would really rethink using LDBM, especially since you are upgrading to
a modern version of OpenLDAP.
Now that you've started slapd, and alock is created, does LDBM continue
to complain, or are things
matthew sporleder wrote:
Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
inconsistent!
Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 100111 local6.debug]
slapd starting
Can I get a status on alock for LDBM?
Accord
> > Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
> > ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
> > inconsistent!
> > Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 100111 local6.debug]
> > slapd starting
> >
> >
> > Can I get
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 14:01 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
> --On Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:54 PM +0200 Pierangelo Masarati
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I don't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure there's no binary
> > compatibility between database files created by OpenLD
--On Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:38 AM +0200 Pierangelo Masarati
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 14:01 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:54 PM +0200 Pierangelo Masarati
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't remember the details, but I'm p
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
>
> --On Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:10 PM -0400 matthew sporleder
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> > Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
>>> > ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
>>> > inconsistent!
>>> > Ap
Michael Ströder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
[snip]
>
> Just for the records: OpenLDAP often complains about alock package even
> when using back-bdb or back-hdb.
Also for the record: Messages from the alock package should not be ignored
lightly (not to say that Michael implied they could be). I'
18 matches
Mail list logo