pe=2 deref=3
filter="(&(objectClass=*)(uid=n588t67))"
Mar 29 17:51:13 guardsdef1 slapd[23444]: conn=4 op=5 SRCH attr=uid
Mar 29 17:51:13 guardsdef1 slapd[23444]: conn=4 op=5 SEARCH RESULT tag=101
err=52 nentries=0 text=
Mar 29 17:51:13 guardsdef1 slapd[23444]: conn=4 op=5 SEARCH RESULT tag=1
ot;ou=personnes,o=st" scope=2
deref=3 filter="(&(objectClass=*)(uid=n588t67))"
Mar 29 17:51:13 guardsdef1 slapd[23444]: conn=4 op=5 SRCH attr=uid
Mar 29 17:51:13 guardsdef1 slapd[23444]: conn=4 op=5 SEARCH RESULT tag=101
err=52 nentries=0 text=
Mar 29 17:51:13 guardsdef1 slap
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my issue is that i have to use the RedHat ES 4 Openldap package.
Then your issue should be directed to support.redhat.com...
I'm pretty sure that your "err=52" is ITS#4429, reported against 2.3.20
and fixed in 2.3.21 (April,
my issue is that i have to use the RedHat ES 4 Openldap package.
I have the same openldap on to servers. one is working properly. the other have
this err=52 error after an undefined time
i realy don't understand why openldap "is shutting down".
Thnaks for your help
Thom
OK i will test our Red Hat gold support. it's the fisrt time !
and if they cannot do anything i will upgrade openldap.
Thomas
> Message du 02/04/07 à 15h50
> De : "Aaron Richton"
> A : "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> Copie à : openldap-software@openldap.org
&g
> This looks similar to #4429, except it's in back-meta and not back-ldap.
Well, the commit message of the back-ldap #4429 fix:
> fix handling of expired connections (ITS#4429; need to look at back-meta
> as well)
and I don't think that the "look at back-meta as well" happened yet? So
maybe give
On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 20:20 -0500, Aaron Richton wrote:
> > This looks similar to #4429, except it's in back-meta and not back-ldap.
>
> Well, the commit message of the back-ldap #4429 fix:
>
> > fix handling of expired connections (ITS#4429; need to look at back-meta
> > as well)
Right. It sho
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 09:40 +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> Seriously, my own workaround (do a search against the meta every five
> minutes) seems to be working. I haven't specified any of those timeouts
> at all, so they would be whatever the defaults are.
By default, they're off; it might be th
Dave Horsfall wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
Seriously, my own workaround (do a search against the meta every five
minutes) seems to be working. I haven't specified any of those timeouts
at all, so they would be whatever the defaults are.
By default, they're
