alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread matthew sporleder
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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread matthew sporleder
(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! >

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
--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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread Howard Chu
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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread matthew sporleder
> > 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? > >

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
--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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread matthew sporleder
> > 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? > >

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread matthew sporleder
> >> > 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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread Pierangelo Masarati
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.

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
--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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
--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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
--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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread Howard Chu
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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread matthew sporleder
> > 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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread Pierangelo Masarati
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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-12 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
--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

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-13 Thread Michael Ströder
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

RE: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

2006-04-13 Thread Matthew Hardin
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'