Quanah Gibson-Mount skrev, on 02-02-2008 22:23:
[...]
I mean exactly what I wrote:
RH is not building OpenLDAP for running as a server. RH is building
OpenLDAP for providing client libraries. They spend months testing that
all of the things that link to these libraries work. To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious: why do all these people who purchased (expensive) RH server
licenses don't open bug reports with Redhat about their openldap
packages?
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
RH is not building OpenLDAP for running as a server.
Also, Red Hat has a conflict of
On Sunday 03 February 2008 09:06:02 Count Of Dracula wrote:
I guess RH does not want to promote OpenLDAP as *the* directory server
or identity management solution. They want to force RHDS for it.
One sign of their inking is FreeIPA project.
http://www.freeipa.org/
I note that with OpenLDAP,
This thread has gone off-topic and is now closed.
(This list is for discussion of technical issues specific to OpenLDAP
issues.)
-- Kurt, your moderator
Hello,
That was a great explation.Simple and Succinct.Too bad it did not come
from stupid RH folks.I am sorry I did not get it. What exactly you
mean by RH is not building OpenLADP for running as a server? I feel
like I am being cheated by RH for duping me to buy expensive RH boxes.
Red Hat
I guess RH does not want to promote OpenLDAP as *the* directory server
or identity management solution. They want to force RHDS for it.
One sign of their inking is FreeIPA project.
http://www.freeipa.org/
Joy
On 2/3/08, Quanah Gibson-Mount [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On February 2, 2008
--On February 2, 2008 6:08:37 PM +0530 Count Of Dracula
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
That was a great explation.Simple and Succinct.Too bad it did not come
from stupid RH folks.I am sorry I did not get it. What exactly you
mean by RH is not building OpenLADP for running as a server?
I
ram skrev, on 31-01-2008 11:13:
I am using ldap for authentication addressbook for a large
mailserver setup with around 300k users ( this will grow to 500k )
The ldap server is a 8GB Ram box with RHEL-5 with
openldap-servers-2.3.27-5
I am confused what database type to use ldbm or bdb.
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 19:27 +0100, Dieter Kluenter wrote:
Hi,
ram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I am using ldap for authentication addressbook for a large
mailserver setup with around 300k users ( this will grow to 500k )
The ldap server is a 8GB Ram box with RHEL-5 with
I (and other Red Hat admins in the know) run Buchan Milne's alternative
which comprise discrete, patched db-4.2.52 and can exist beside the
RHEL5 offering. This is an utterly stable and dependable product; it is
available at http://staff.telkomsa.net/packages/rhel5Server/openldap/.
Will I have
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 06:13 +0100, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
ram skrev, on 31-01-2008 11:13:
I am using ldap for authentication addressbook for a large
mailserver setup with around 300k users ( this will grow to 500k )
The ldap server is a 8GB Ram box with RHEL-5 with
ram skrev, on 01-02-2008 14:53:
[...]
I (and other Red Hat admins in the know) run Buchan Milne's alternative
which comprise discrete, patched db-4.2.52 and can exist beside the
RHEL5 offering. This is an utterly stable and dependable product; it is
available at
When I run db_stat I get an error
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ldap]# db_stat -d dn2id.bdb
db_stat: Program version 4.3 doesn't match environment version
db_stat: DB_ENV-open: DB_VERSION_MISMATCH: Database environment version
mismatch
The db4 rpm I have installed is db4-4.3.29-9
Should I upgrade the db4
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
If your 2.3.35 servers can be accessed via a remote connection, anyone
can crash them at any time. Is that considered critical?
So far as I know, they can't be accessed remotely by anywhere off
campus, so that should at least mitigate the risk.
But I will
--On Friday, February 01, 2008 12:46 PM -0600 Brad Knowles
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
If your 2.3.35 servers can be accessed via a remote connection, anyone
can crash them at any time. Is that considered critical?
Out of curiosity, can you point me at specific
Tony Earnshaw skrev, on 01-02-2008 16:20:
[...]
Will I have to remove my current db4* rpms to install these ?
As Aaron wrote, no. If you do install Buchan's rpms it's important to
know that he separates it from Red Hat's by tacking '2.3' on to the end
of everything, including the man
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
If your 2.3.35 servers can be accessed via a remote connection, anyone
can crash them at any time. Is that considered critical?
Out of curiosity, can you point me at specific weaknesses in 2.3.35 that
we should be concerned about? Are we talking about ITS#s 4923,
Tony Earnshaw:
[...]
If you do install Buchan's rpms it's important to
know that he separates it from Red Hat's by tacking '2.3' on to the end
of everything, including the man pages. So slapd is called slapd2.3,
ldapsearch is called ldapsearch2.3, /usr/bin/slapd_db_recover2.3, etc.
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:24:50PM -0600, Ryan Horrisberger wrote:
same as RH's packages and will replace them--but so far it works great, and
the upgrade was flawless (you have to rebuild the DB since it is using an
older [better] version of bdb), and yes the package RH ships is an
--On February 1, 2008 7:56:03 PM -0200 Andreas Hasenack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious: why do all these people who purchased (expensive) RH server
licenses don't open bug reports with Redhat about their openldap
packages?
RH is not building OpenLDAP for running as a server. RH is
Hi,
I am using ldap for authentication addressbook for a large
mailserver setup with around 300k users ( this will grow to 500k )
The ldap server is a 8GB Ram box with RHEL-5 with
openldap-servers-2.3.27-5
I am confused what database type to use ldbm or bdb. Currently I have
the users on
ram wrote:
I am confused what database type to use ldbm or bdb.
bdb!
Currently I have
the users on bdb with lot of problems. The ldap server dies all of a
sudden and I have to recover the data to get it started
Try to upgrade to 2.3.40 and look if that solves your problem. Also you
did
Hi,
ram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I am using ldap for authentication addressbook for a large
mailserver setup with around 300k users ( this will grow to 500k )
The ldap server is a 8GB Ram box with RHEL-5 with
openldap-servers-2.3.27-5
I am confused what database type to use
Michael Ströder wrote:
Currently I have
the users on bdb with lot of problems. The ldap server dies all of a
sudden and I have to recover the data to get it started
Try to upgrade to 2.3.40 and look if that solves your problem. Also you
did not say anything about your Berkeley DB
ram wrote:
I am using ldap for authentication addressbook for a large
mailserver setup with around 300k users ( this will grow to 500k )
We have about 50,000 students, and 20,000 faculty staff, with over
four million records. My understanding is that we're one of the larger
OpenLDAP
Brad Knowles wrote:
Michael Ströder wrote:
Currently I have
the users on bdb with lot of problems. The ldap server dies all of a
sudden and I have to recover the data to get it started
Try to upgrade to 2.3.40 and look if that solves your problem. Also you
did not say anything about your
In our case, we tried upgrading to 2.3.40, and we had a crash of a sort that
has not been seen before, at least not very often. We've stepped back to
2.3.35 because we know at least something of what caused the failure there,
and we know how to avoid at least that particular problem. We're
Howard Chu wrote:
While ITS#5342 is still being investigated, I would recommend that
everyone use 2.3.39 and not 2.3.40. Sorry for the trouble.
Unfortunately, this is a pretty important production server, and there
are a number of other groups involved.
In any normal upgrade, we have a
Aaron Richton wrote:
One of the great things about using community software is that we can
all help each other out, either directly (we've analyzed this and found
X) or indirectly (we've noticed Y three times, which never happened
before, just FYI for now for pattern development), by sharing
--On Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:56 PM -0600 Brad Knowles
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless there is another critical problem that occurs with 2.3.35, I doubt
we'll be going through all the normal processes to consider an upgrade to
a newer version, at least not until after we've had more
30 matches
Mail list logo
