On 06/24/2013 09:34 AM,
jovan.vuko...@sungard.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like to
link the issue I reported on Saturday with the bug 723937
filed some two years ago.
There, just as
On 06/27/2013 04:57 AM, Michael Lang wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to clarify how the procedure to export - LDIF through
the 389-console GUI is done (or how if reproduce should be done).
As far as I've understood the exports on the server itself is done
through creating a appropriate entry in
On 06/27/2013 03:28 AM, Juan Carlos
Camargo wrote:
Hi list,
I was expecting these new changes in PassSync (moreover
those related to the 8th bit handling) , so congrats for the
advances.
On 06/27/2013 12:32 PM, Michael Lang wrote:
On 06/27/2013 06:13 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 06/27/2013 04:57 AM, Michael Lang wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to clarify how the procedure to export - LDIF
through the 389-console GUI is done (or how if reproduce should be
done).
As far as I've
On 06/28/2013 02:14 AM, Michael Lang wrote:
On 06/27/2013 08:52 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 06/27/2013 12:32 PM, Michael Lang wrote:
On 06/27/2013 06:13 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 06/27/2013 04:57 AM, Michael Lang wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to clarify how the procedure to export
endian. Maybe we have a 32 access to a 64 bit var, which has
no effect on little endian machines.
Ludwig
On 07/01/2013 04:06 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 06/30/2013 12:10 AM, _ilmir@atacom.kz_ mailto:il...@atacom.kzwrote:
Good morning!
Yes. Accesslog level is *772*:
/
[30/Jun/2013:12:00:31 +0600
On 07/19/2013 06:43 AM, Darcy Hodgson wrote:
Hello,
I have been setting up SSL/TLS with 389 DS on CentOS 6.4. I have been
able to get it working and can connect with LDAPS. However when I
started to disabled some of the ciphers I noticed that my server
wasn't accepting any of the DHE
, but this stack trace is useless. Looks
like you don't have the right versions of the debuginfo packages. Please
check the directions at http://port389.org/wiki/FAQ#Debugging_Crashes
and Debugging_Hangs
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
mailto:rmegg
On 07/26/2013 09:07 AM, harry.dev...@faa.gov wrote:
We were interested in tracking a user's last login time, and I see the
attribute that I can add in the user's profile. But we have 460 users
so adding that in manually would be tedious. I saw this article
online:
(609)485-4218
harry.dev...@faa.gov
From: Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Cc: Harry Devine/ACT/FAA@FAA
Date: 07/26/2013 11:57 AM
Subject:Re: [389-users] Question about
/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/9.0/html/Administration_Guide/Managing_Replication-Solving_Common_Replication_Conflicts.html#cleanruv
-Tripp
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
mailto:rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/29/2013 09:46 AM, Tripp
On 07/30/2013 08:41 AM, Kyle Johnson wrote:
Sorry, I should know better. 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-12.el6_4.x86_64
Then yes, it has that patch.
On 2013-07-30 10:38, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 07/30/2013 08:09 AM, Kyle Johnson wrote:
I have found this bug
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com
Thanks,
Harry
Harry Devine
Common ARTS Software Development
AJM-245
(609)485-4218
harry.dev...@faa.gov
From: Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
To: Harry Devine/ACT/FAA@FAA
Cc: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Date: 07/26
on the original server is now
up to around ~10080.
Kyle
On 2013-07-30 11:00, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 07/30/2013 08:48 AM, Kyle Johnson wrote:
If it has the patch, what would be causing my dnanextvalue fields to
not be in sync? They're using the local value of the dnanextvalue,
and when
.
* Ticket #47378 https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47378 - fix
recent compiler warnings
* Ticket #543 https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/543 - Sorting with
attributes in ldapsearch gives incorrect result
Rich Megginson (20):
* Ticket #47362 https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47362 - ipa
On 08/02/2013 01:30 AM, Manel Gimeno Zaragozá wrote:
Hello,
Yesterday afternoon my LDAP server crashed without doing any
modification, just consulting.
My environment is an openvz container:
# cat /etc/issue
CentOS release 6.4 (Final)
Kernel \r on an \m
# uname -a
Linux newldap.test.es
On 08/02/2013 01:51 AM, Carsten Grzemba wrote:
Hi Rich,
Am 01.08.13 schrieb *Rich Megginson * rmegg...@redhat.com:
On 08/01/2013 02:35 PM, Tim Daley wrote:
Just tried it. Looks like I'm still getting 389-ds-base.x86_64
0:1.2.11.21-1.el6_4 when I do a
yum clean all
yum --enablerepo=epel
on timing and the whims of the replication protocol.
We were looking at some of the docs but hadn't really found anything
step by step so I thought I'd ask.
Thanks!
Harry Devine
Common ARTS Software Development
AJM-245
(609)485-4218
harry.dev...@faa.gov
From: Rich Megginson rmegg
On 08/17/2013 09:47 AM, Archimedes Gaviola wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
mailto:rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/16/2013 12:22 AM, Archimedes Gaviola wrote:
Hi,
I would like to know if 389 DS closely follow this RFC specs
http
, Tehnološki park 18, p.p. 7, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia
tel: +386 1 479 8877, fax: +386 1 479 88 78
On 08/19/2013 05:22 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 08/19/2013 09:12 AM, Mitja Mihelič wrote:
Hi!
Out DIT holds user entries that have multiple mail attributes
(main email, aliases).
Here
On 08/21/2013 01:03 PM, Michael Lang wrote:
Am 21.08.2013 19:25, schrieb Chris Taylor:
I am looking at replacing our two CentOS DS servers which are 5.9
with some on the 6.4 channel. What is the best way to transition all
the data over? Should I build them separately and import everything
servers.
Does this sound about right?
Yes.
Chris
*From:*389-users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:389-users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] *On Behalf Of *Rich
Megginson
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2013 3:40 PM
*To:* Michael Lang
*Cc:* General discussion list for the 389
0x2aeeadf4df1a in ldbm_back_modify (pb=0x2af022054ca0) at
ldap/servers/slapd/back-ldbm/ldbm_modify.c:269
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
mailto:rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/21/2013 09:53 AM, David Boreham wrote:
Another thing you might try
On 08/30/2013 01:24 PM, Wick, Samson wrote:
Running 389-ds version 1.2.2-1 (according to the rpm)
rpm -q 389-ds-base
version of 389-ds is almost meaningless
In attempting to stand up a new consumer in our environment, the
process of allowing the supplier to initialize the consumer
Is there a good place I can go to educate myself on what a “vucsn”
actually means, and possibly why I have hundreds of thousands of them
for userPassword in my initialization files?
It is replication meta-data which is supposed to be automatically trimmed.
Thanks
*From:*Rich Megginson [mailto:rmegg
On 09/13/2013 12:50 AM, Vesa Alho wrote:
Hi,
I would like to understand how to improve indexes in our current 389
servers. I have not yet touched default indexes settings. Entry cache
hit ratio for userRoot is 59%, which is fairly low if I've undestood
correctly? I've read the excellent
On 09/16/2013 01:58 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
Hi, I am currently on 389-ds-base 1.2.11.15-22.el6_4 and I am running logconv.pl on 5.5M
line log file. At the end it hangs up - in a loop forever and doesn't finish generating
the report. What I am wondering is if I installed 1.3 latest on
time is spent spitting out the unindexed stuff which is critical
information to fix apps or provide additional indices.
Right. We are working on this.
/mrg
On Sep 16, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/16/2013 01:58 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
Hi, I am currently
On 09/29/2013 06:11 PM, Michael R. Gettes wrote:
we are able to get a backtrace via gdb
(gdb) bt
#0 0x7fc637cd5bd8 in attrlist_find () from /usr/lib64/dirsrv/libslapd.so.0
#1 0x7fc637ce70b2 in slapi_entry_attr_find ()
from /usr/lib64/dirsrv/libslapd.so.0
#2 0x7fc62c7f34e4 in
On 10/01/2013 06:19 AM, Ric wrote:
Hello All,
I hope you can forgive a request which I am sure doesn't have enough
information in it, please let me know what else I can add if you might
be able to help.
I have a problem with our installation of RHDS9 and practically
nothing in the logs to
On 10/02/2013 08:22 AM, Michael Gettes wrote:
We had a crash early this morning on one of our masters (MMR with 2 servers, 3
replicas connected to each). Nothing in the errors log. The service was
restarted and has not crashed since.
From syslog we have:
kernel: ns-slapd[18143]:
to find?
How's this?
http://port389.org/wiki/Documentation#Howtos
/mrg
On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/02/2013 08:22 AM, Michael Gettes wrote:
We had a crash early this morning on one of our masters (MMR with 2 servers, 3
replicas connected
/ticket/47540 -
Coverity fixes 12023, 12024, and 12025
* Ticket #422 https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/422 - 389-ds-base
- Can't call method getText
Rich Megginson (13):
* Bug 999634 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=999634 -
ns-slapd crash due to bogus DN
* Ticket #47516 https
There are still some of you in the 389 community that are running on
EL5, and we haven't had an update for quite some time.
The 389 team has backported some fixes that allow the 1.2.11 branch to
build on EL5.
There is a new build in epel-testing for EL5 - 389-ds-base-1.2.11.24-1.el5
If you
On 10/05/2013 10:41 PM, sang jun song wrote:
I was performance test last week.
I want to migrate from SunONE 5.2 to centos-ds or 389 ds.
but SunONE 5.2 performance is GoD!!~.
why?
OS: redhat linux 5.9 or centos linnux 5.9
HW : Specifications are the same.
target Directory Server:
On 10/15/2013 04:40 AM, Parasit Hendersson wrote:
Hi,
Once again we have a problem on our servers , this time with replication.
In the log file repeatedly appear the same entries.
[15/Oct/2013:11:08:43 +0200] NSMMReplicationPlugin - agmt=master port
389 to slave port 389 (slave:389): Beginning
On 10/15/2013 07:39 AM, Parasit Hendersson wrote:
W dniu 2013-10-15 15:24, Rich Megginson pisze:
A given solution in this case it does not help, i made (again)
initialization and the effect is exactly the same. What else can be
wrong?
You initialized the server slave port 389 from
On 10/17/2013 06:15 PM, Russell Beall wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to port a plugin from our Sun DS to 389. I worked through a number
of API differences and got it to compile. When I tried to run a test I keep
getting segmentation faults in the pthread library regardless of how I compile
or link
/removing users from groups would
trigger it to update ALL groups for that user,
Yes, it does.
so I just bulk added everyone to a group and problem solved.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
mailto:rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/22/2013 10:52 AM, Jonathan
On 10/23/2013 03:34 PM, Russell Beall wrote:
I am working out the best way to enable SSL in a new 389 directory suite setup.
I found that when updating the SSL certificate, there are problems with the
symmetric keys used for attribute encryption. The instructions simply say to
delete those
On 11/03/2013 05:15 AM, Ezequiel Larrarte wrote:
Hi people ...
Nowadays, I have CentOS5 on my servers, but next year I ll start
setting up CentOS 6 on them.
I ll first install 389DS on the main CentOS5 servers from EPEL
repository (currently version 1.2.1) and I guess replication between
them
On 11/04/2013 08:05 AM, Jan Tomasek wrote:
Hi Rich,
On 11/01/2013 04:28 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
If there is 30 or more parallel connections 389 hangs for ever. Very
often killing process ldapsearch process does not help. Server is very
often unable to restart so I have to kill it with -9
On 11/04/2013 08:16 AM, Ezequiel Larrarte wrote:
Hi Rich, Can you be more specific?
On Nov 4, 2013 11:49 AM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
mailto:rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/03/2013 05:15 AM, Ezequiel Larrarte wrote:
Hi people ...
Nowadays, I have CentOS5
Megginson wrote:
On 11/04/2013 09:39 AM, Ezequiel Larrarte wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 11/04/2013 09:06 AM, Ezequiel Larrarte wrote:
No matter that they are different versions???
Yes. The replication protocol is the same.
The only problems you
On 11/04/2013 10:46 AM, Jan Tomasek wrote:
On 11/04/2013 05:22 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 11/04/2013 09:08 AM, Jan Tomasek wrote:
On 11/04/2013 05:04 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
Does the script open a connection to the same server it is being called
from?
Yes.
So this is a case of self
On 11/04/2013 12:59 PM, Paul Whitney wrote:
I have a master, hub, and 4 consumers.
I want to initialize the consumers who have a replication agreement
from the hub.
Is it okay to export the replica from one replication agreement to a
consumer and use the that same replica for the three
4, 2013 12:21 PM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
mailto:rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/04/2013 08:16 AM, Ezequiel Larrarte wrote:
Hi Rich, Can you be more specific?
On Nov 4, 2013 11:49 AM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
mailto:rmegg...@redhat.com wrote
On 11/08/2013 02:10 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
As I currently understand things, 389 1.2 is available via RPM dist channels
(including epel test using rmeggins people repo)
. . . and really isn't fully supported. My main intention for providing
EL6 binaries was to give a preview of upcoming
On 11/08/2013 02:58 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
On Nov 8, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
mailto:rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/08/2013 02:10 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
As I currently understand things, 389 1.2 is available via RPM dist
channels (including epel test using
On 11/14/2013 08:50 AM, Mitja Mihelič wrote:
One of the consumers has crashed again and I have attached the stacktrace.
Four hous later it crashed again.
I do hope there is something in the stacktraces, so that something can
be done to prevent future crashes.
Unfortunately, not enough.
On 11/14/2013 03:36 PM, Jeffrey Dunham wrote:
We're running 389-Directory/1.2.10.14 http://1.2.10.14 on Rhel5.3
and just ran into a database issue that we've not seen before.
I don't know if it's related to the replication delete just before it,
but we've successfully added and deleted multiple
On 11/18/2013 07:01 AM, Mitja Mihelič wrote:
On 15. 11. 2013 21:46, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 11/15/2013 02:58 AM, Mitja Mihelič wrote:
On 14. 11. 2013 22:08, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 11/14/2013 08:50 AM, Mitja Mihelič wrote:
One of the consumers has crashed again and I have attached
On 11/19/2013 02:23 AM, Lulzim KELMENI wrote:
Hello,
We are planning to update our 389-ds from
version 389-ds-base-1.2.10.7-1.el6.x86_64 to version 1.2.11.xx.
We have tested the 389-ds-base-1.2.11.23-3.el6.x86_64 version from
epel-testing-389-ds-base repo. We have not find any probem with
On 11/18/2013 04:12 AM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Hi,
Problem: During high levels of writes to the master server, _some_
LDAP search hosts replication_latency rises (and in some cases, does
not recover) unless its removed from service or slapd is restarted.
Version: 389-ds-base-1.2.10.14-3.2.el5
On 11/23/2013 08:11 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I have two LDAP servers in a multimaster replication setup that has worked fine
for a while.
Recently it was reported to me that the two LDAP servers had somehow gone out
of sync and refused to replicate. I am trying to fix this by
On 11/23/2013 02:14 AM, Vesa Alho wrote:
Hi,
I have the following setup:
ldap1.example.com
ldap2.example.com
They are in Multiple Master configuration. After normal yum updates, I
run setup-ds-admin.pl --update
1. What does this script actually do with --update parameter? Does it
only
On 11/25/2013 03:33 PM, JLPicard wrote:
Hi, I am testing out 389_ds_base, version =1.2.11.15,REV=2013.01.31
running on mixed Solaris 10 servers (SPARC and X86) sourced from
http://www.opencsw.org/packages/CSW389-ds-base
in multi-master mode with 4 servers that is primarily used for
On 11/25/2013 04:37 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On Friday, I updated one of several systems that I manage from version
1.2.11.15 to version 1.2.11.25. Thereafter, the service was unable to
start. The error indicates a problem with SSL that I don't
understand. I've included the relevant
.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Rich Megginson
rmegg...@redhat.com mailto:rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/21/2013 09:55 AM, Alberto Viana wrote:
Rich,
Yes. If you need any specific info about how I built please
let me know.
yes, your configure
On 11/25/2013 06:26 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 11/25/2013 03:54 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
Is there some reason you need to upgrade from the OS provided official
RHEL 6.4 version of 389-ds-base to the non-OS provided version from the
rmeggins epel6 repo?
I no longer remember why that's
On 12/02/2013 07:19 AM, Alberto Viana wrote:
After some tries I got it working but now i'm getting these errors:
+[02/Dec/2013:12:16:25 -0200] - 389-Directory/1.3.2.6 http://1.3.2.6
B2013.336.123 starting up
+[02/Dec/2013:12:16:25 -0200] - I'm resizing my cache now...cache was
417587200 and
On 12/02/2013 05:49 AM, Sugantha J wrote:
Hi Everyone
I am running 389 DS 1.2.8.2 in CentOS 4.8. I have a multi master
setup, with 12 LDAP servers. Everything was working fine, till one of
the boxes (ldapw02) suddenly crashed. When it came back up, I see the
following in the error log,
:*Rich Megginson [mailto:rmegg...@redhat.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:22 AM
*To:* General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.
*Cc:* Sugantha J
*Subject:* Re: [389-users] Replication issue after improper shutdown
On 12/02/2013 05:49 AM, Sugantha J wrote:
Hi
On 12/02/2013 06:42 PM, Colin Panisset wrote:
I have a 4-way multi-master replication configuration; the servers are
slightly different versions, as below:
A - 1.2.9.9-1.el5 (CentOS 5)
B - 1.2.9.9-1.el5 (CentOS 5)
C - 1.2.10.2-20.el6_3 (CentOS 6)
D - 1.2.11.15-22.el6_4 (CentOS 6)
D was
On 12/03/2013 03:11 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 11/25/2013 03:54 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
Is there some reason you need to upgrade from the OS provided official
RHEL 6.4 version of 389-ds-base to the non-OS provided version from the
rmeggins epel6 repo?
Now I remember... there's no Windows
On 12/05/2013 10:12 AM, Alberto Viana wrote:
I have 2 389 running (389-Directory/1.3.2.6 http://1.3.2.6 and
389-Directory/1.3.1.3 http://1.3.1.3) with multiple master
configuration.
When I set the option check hostname against name in certificate for
outbound SSL connections the agreement
On 12/06/2013 10:41 AM, Paul Whitney wrote:
I recently upgraded my DS9 instance (RHDS9 RHBA-2013-0960) on both
ldap server and my console. This should bring my servers to DS 9.1.
Yet, I still see Version 9.0.0. Is this correct or did I miss a step?
There should have been something in the
, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/06/2013 10:41 AM, Paul Whitney wrote:
I recently upgraded my DS9 instance (RHDS9 RHBA-2013-0960) on both
ldap server and my console. This should bring my servers to DS 9.1.
Yet, I still see Version 9.0.0. Is this correct or did I miss a step
symbolic links and for 9.0 jar files, why
will the console not use the jars already present?
A 9.1 server must use the 9.1 jars, not the 9.0 jars.
Paul M. Whitney
E-mail: paul.whit...@mac.com
Cell: 410.493.9448
On Dec 06, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote
On 12/08/2013 10:24 PM, Colin Panisset wrote:
Hi Rich, apologies for the delay in replying, I've been out of the
office for a couple of days.
On 12/04/2013 08:31 AM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 12/02/2013 06:42 PM, Colin Panisset wrote:
I have a 4-way multi-master replication configuration
On 12/09/2013 10:55 AM, Paul Whitney wrote:
Paul M. Whitney
E-mail: paul.whit...@mac.com
On Dec 09, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/09/2013 09:30 AM, Paul Whitney wrote:
Rich,
I deinstalled and reinstalled my DS 9.0 ISO, then ran through the
updates
2011.312.195.
It would appear to me that the config instance did not get updated
correctly.
I would appear that setup-ds-admin.pl -u is still not running correctly.
Paul M. Whitney
E-mail: paul.whit...@mac.com
On Dec 09, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/09/2013
On 12/11/2013 10:34 AM, Michael Gettes wrote:
389-Directory/1.2.11.15 B2013.238.2155
2 MMR master servers (this hang happened on one of the masters) along
with 3 read-only replicas.
Linux 2.6.32-358.18.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Aug 2 17:04:38 EDT
2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
On 12/12/2013 11:55 AM, Alberto Viana wrote:
I found the root cause, it's happens when I change a user from one OU
to another on my windows side.
Is that an expected behavior?
sounds like https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/355
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Alberto Viana
that I
modified the OU.
Am I clear enough?
Yes. If you can reproduce the issue with 1.2.11, please file a ticket.
Thanks
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
mailto:rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/2013 11:55 AM, Alberto Viana wrote:
I found
On 12/13/2013 02:44 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
Hello list,
I'm sorry for nagging you, but Fedora 20 release day is coming and I
have experienced serious issues with 389-ds-base-1.3.2.8-1.fc20.x86_64.
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47629
Would it be worth to build a 389-ds-base-1.3.1 for
On 12/22/2013 08:15 PM, David Barr wrote:
Good Morning!
I’m working my way through
http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Howto:SSL
trying to create the certificates with OpenSSL, and then get them added to the
NSS database. Most of that is fine. It’s only at the end that the directory
On 01/08/2014 10:31 AM, Paul Whitney wrote:
Hi,
I recently updated RHDS 9.0 servers to 9.1. I am getting mixed
results with the update. Steps taken:
1. Stop all dirsrv and dirsrv-admin services
2. Executed yum localupdate *.rpm
3. After the yum completes. Execute setup-ds.pl --debug
On 01/13/2014 07:27 AM, Chris Chatfield wrote:
Hi,
I'm seeing a similar situation as was described in the mailing list message errors
log - NSACLPlugin - acllas__client_match_URL: from Feb 2013. The final result of
this was a suggestion to file a ticket. As far as I can see this wasn't done.
On 01/15/2014 10:38 AM, Richard Mixon wrote:
During the bind process is there anyway to tell 389 directory server
to hash a plaintext password n (multiple) times before trying to
compare to what is stored?
I am trying to implement something similar to what's described in this
article:
?
No.
Nathan, I have a background in C, but do mostly Java these days. I
will take a look at ticket 397 and get back to you if it's something I
could work on. Can you provide me the pointers you were referring to?
Thank you - Richard
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Rich Megginson rmegg
referring to?
Thank you - Richard
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com
mailto:rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/15/2014 10:38 AM, Richard Mixon wrote:
During the bind process is there anyway to tell 389 directory
server to hash a plaintext password n
On 01/16/2014 07:48 AM, Paolo Barbato wrote:
Hi Rich,
On 16/gen/2014, at 15:28, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/16/2014 12:56 AM, Paolo Barbato wrote:
Thanks for replies, I think I need to better describe what I'm testing.
As I said I've a central repository for credentials
On 01/16/2014 07:57 AM, Louis-Marie Plumel wrote:
Hello,
Actually , i work with openldap.
I've installed an AD 2008 R2.My challenge is to work with both and
synchronise LDAP and AD 2008 R2. After a long research on the web, i
don't find any information about howto synchronise passwords .
mailto:pspa...@redhat.com
On 16.1.2014 15:59, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 01/16/2014 07:57 AM, Louis-Marie Plumel wrote:
Hello,
Actually , i work with openldap.
I've installed an AD 2008 R2.My challenge is to work with
both
On 01/16/2014 08:13 AM, Paolo Barbato wrote:
On 16/gen/2014, at 15:52, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/16/2014 07:48 AM, Paolo Barbato wrote:
Hi Rich,
On 16/gen/2014, at 15:28, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/16/2014 12:56 AM, Paolo Barbato wrote:
Thanks
On 01/21/2014 10:47 AM, Colin Tulloch wrote:
Hi All –
We had a bundle of problems with our MM/consumer setup. Ran of out
FDs on the consumers, had the slapd process on a master die, etc.
Platform? 389-ds-base version? rpm -q 389-ds-base
We’re getting things back up and running
] *On Behalf Of *Rich
Megginson
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:33 PM
*To:* General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.
*Subject:* Re: [389-users] Naming conflict on hub/consumer
If the answers given below are not satisfactory, please file tickets
for all of these issues
, or theres something else. Why
would it be limited to 700?
*From:*389-users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:389-users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] *On Behalf Of *Rich
Megginson
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:12 PM
*To:* General discussion list for the 389 Directory server
...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:389-users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] *On Behalf Of *Rich
Megginson
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:46 PM
*To:* General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.
*Subject:* Re: [389-users] Naming conflict on hub/consumer
On 01/21/2014 02:45 PM, Colin Tulloch
of the sed to get it working
properly.
*From:*389-users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:389-users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] *On Behalf Of *Rich
Megginson
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:24 PM
*To:* General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.
*Subject:* Re
consumers to
masters, and replicated to them.
*From:*389-users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:389-users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] *On Behalf Of *Rich
Megginson
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:36 AM
*To:* General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.
*Subject
On 01/30/2014 10:17 AM, David Boreham wrote:
On 1/30/2014 10:18 AM, Paul Whitney wrote:
rpm -q 389-ds-base
389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-30.el6_5.x86_64
No errors, just a status:
reindex userRoot: Processed 315000 entries (pass 11) -- avg rate
15283456.5/sec, recent rate 0.0/sec. hit ration 0%
and/or configuration that is causing problems?
Paul M. Whitney
E-mail: paul.whit...@mac.com
On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/30/2014 10:17 AM, David Boreham wrote:
On 1/30/2014 10:18 AM, Paul Whitney wrote:
rpm -q 389-ds-base
389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-30.el6_5
On 02/07/2014 10:16 PM, Elizabeth Jones wrote:
Hi - I have just encountered a replication error on our 389DS. We are
running Version 1.2.10.12 Build number 2012.180.1623. We had the
following error earlier today from our ldap1 server (running multimaster)
-
07/Feb/2014:13:06:52 -0600]
On 02/10/2014 02:40 PM, Elizabeth Jones wrote:
It's going to be practically impossible to support 1.2.10. Can you
upgrade to 1.2.11?
I'm heading that way right now. I found a bug on redhat that looks like
it is exactly what I'm running into --
On 02/11/2014 10:32 PM, Timothy Pollard wrote:
Hi,
After our LDAP instance has been running for a while large LDAP searches in
our userRoot start hanging. This appears to be caused by the entryrdn index
becoming corrupt since it can be fixed by regenerating the entryrdn index.
To give an
/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/9.0/html/Administration_Guide/Managing_Replication-Configuring-Replication-cmd.html
I've added some more information and logs below.
On 2014-02-12 18:04, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/12/2014 06:29 AM, Jan Kowalsky wrote:
Version and platform please - rpm -q 389-ds-base
yes, sorry, I
On 02/14/2014 01:57 PM, Jan Kowalsky wrote:
On 2014-02-13 15:12, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/13/2014 02:05 AM, Jan Kowalsky wrote:
On 2014-02-12 23:25, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/12/2014 02:34 PM, Jan Kowalsky wrote:
Hi Rich,
Not sure what version 1.2.11.15-1 is on Debian
doesn't necessarily help with the
memory usage.
this would be the answer i am looking for.
/mrg
On Feb 14, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/14/2014 02:04 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
I did some searching to try and answer the following question and the answer
501 - 600 of 813 matches
Mail list logo
