Re: uniqueMember Index
Hi Emmanuel, I can see now that you have already fixed the problem. We have M24 running now, how can I use your fix in our environment? Or otherwise how can I build the latest snapshot to be able to verify it? Best regards Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:40 PM Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > I have created a JIRA ticket for this issue: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRAPI-340 > > Incidentally, I also have a fix that I'm going to test and apply asap. > (the fix is pretty straightforward) > > > On 30/04/2019 16:29, Sergey Mikhno wrote: > > Thank you again, > > > > Is it possible to get a fix for this issue, how should we go about it? > > It would be great to be able to test a bugfix in our environment. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Sergey > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:24 PM Emmanuel Lécharny > > wrote: > > > >> Ok, this a clear bug. The UniqueMemberComparator.compare() method is > >> badly implemented, and returns either 0 or -1, which means we can't > >> browse the index, as we never get a +1 (ie, provided uniqueMember is > >> superior to the stored one). > >> > >> I'll get that fixed. > >> > >> On 30/04/2019 15:59, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > >>> Hi Sergey, > >>> > >>> > >>> I can positively confirm that there is a problem. I'm able to > >>> reproduce the issue you are facing in a unit test. > >>> > >>> I'm currently debugging the server, and hope to come with a quick > >>> answer (and hopefully a fix). > >>> > >>> > >>> On 30/04/2019 11:33, Sergey Mikhno wrote: > >>>> Dear Emmanuel, > >>>> > >>>> I spent now more than a week trying to understand why uniqueMember > index > >>>> doesn't work and still have no progress in understanding the problem. > >>>> > >>>> With a defined index on uniqueMember my query brings empty result > >>>> > >>>> *(**&* > >>>> > >>>> *(*objectclass*=*groupOfUniqueNames*)* > >>>> > >>>> *(**|* > >>>> > >>>> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=galexisLoginPOS*)* > >>>> > >>>> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerGalexis*)* > >>>> > >>>> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerAlloga*)* > >>>> > >>>> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=isDemo*)* > >>>> > >>>> *)* > >>>> > >>>> *)* > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Without index the query brings correct results but is slow, 300ms. > >>>> Is there any description about how to define an index on uniqueMember. > >>>> > >>>> We have several other non-standard indexed attributes and all of them > >>>> are > >>>> working. > >>>> As I understand it should be possible to define an index on both > >>>> member and > >>>> uniqieMember. > >>>> > >>>> So I have 2 questions: > >>>> 1. Is it correct that this query is slow because there is no index? > >>>> 2. How should I define such an index? > >>>> > >>>> Below is the current index definition > >>>> dn: > >>>> > >> > ads-indexAttributeId=uniqueMember,ou=indexes,ads-partitionId=system,ou=parti > >> > >>>>tions,ads-directoryServiceId=default,ou=config > >>>> ads-indexHasReverse: FALSE > >>>> entryCSN: 20190430090357.476000Z#00#001#00 > >>>> objectClass: ads-index > >>>> objectClass: top > >>>> objectClass: ads-jdbmIndex > >>>> objectClass: ads-base > >>>> createTimestamp: 20190430090357.476Z > >>>> creatorsName: 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1=admin,2.5.4.11=system > >>>> ads-indexAttributeId: uniqueMember > >>>> ads-enabled: TRUE > >>>> entryUUID: dcd2fa31-5ee0-48fb-9d3e-30487957045a > >>>> entryParentId: fdf6f3a6-dfaf-4b1a-962c-faa14328d1ae > >>>> > >>>> Could you please advice? > >>>> > > > -- Sergey Mikhno
uniqueMember Index
Dear Emmanuel, I spent now more than a week trying to understand why uniqueMember index doesn't work and still have no progress in understanding the problem. With a defined index on uniqueMember my query brings empty result *(**&* *(*objectclass*=*groupOfUniqueNames*)* *(**|* *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=galexisLoginPOS*)* *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerGalexis*)* *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerAlloga*)* *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=isDemo*)* *)* *)* Without index the query brings correct results but is slow, 300ms. Is there any description about how to define an index on uniqueMember. We have several other non-standard indexed attributes and all of them are working. As I understand it should be possible to define an index on both member and uniqieMember. So I have 2 questions: 1. Is it correct that this query is slow because there is no index? 2. How should I define such an index? Below is the current index definition dn: ads-indexAttributeId=uniqueMember,ou=indexes,ads-partitionId=system,ou=parti tions,ads-directoryServiceId=default,ou=config ads-indexHasReverse: FALSE entryCSN: 20190430090357.476000Z#00#001#00 objectClass: ads-index objectClass: top objectClass: ads-jdbmIndex objectClass: ads-base createTimestamp: 20190430090357.476Z creatorsName: 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1=admin,2.5.4.11=system ads-indexAttributeId: uniqueMember ads-enabled: TRUE entryUUID: dcd2fa31-5ee0-48fb-9d3e-30487957045a entryParentId: fdf6f3a6-dfaf-4b1a-962c-faa14328d1ae Could you please advice? -- Sergey Mikhno
Re: uniqueMember Index
Hi Emmanuel, Thank you very much for your quick response, Please let me know if you need more information. Best regards Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 3:59 PM Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > Hi Sergey, > > > I can positively confirm that there is a problem. I'm able to reproduce > the issue you are facing in a unit test. > > I'm currently debugging the server, and hope to come with a quick answer > (and hopefully a fix). > > > On 30/04/2019 11:33, Sergey Mikhno wrote: > > Dear Emmanuel, > > > > I spent now more than a week trying to understand why uniqueMember index > > doesn't work and still have no progress in understanding the problem. > > > > With a defined index on uniqueMember my query brings empty result > > > > *(**&* > > > > *(*objectclass*=*groupOfUniqueNames*)* > > > > *(**|* > > > > *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=galexisLoginPOS*)* > > > > *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerGalexis*)* > > > > *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerAlloga*)* > > > > *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=isDemo*)* > > > > *)* > > > > *)* > > > > > > > > Without index the query brings correct results but is slow, 300ms. > > Is there any description about how to define an index on uniqueMember. > > > > We have several other non-standard indexed attributes and all of them are > > working. > > As I understand it should be possible to define an index on both member > and > > uniqieMember. > > > > So I have 2 questions: > > 1. Is it correct that this query is slow because there is no index? > > 2. How should I define such an index? > > > > Below is the current index definition > > dn: > > > ads-indexAttributeId=uniqueMember,ou=indexes,ads-partitionId=system,ou=parti > > tions,ads-directoryServiceId=default,ou=config > > ads-indexHasReverse: FALSE > > entryCSN: 20190430090357.476000Z#00#001#00 > > objectClass: ads-index > > objectClass: top > > objectClass: ads-jdbmIndex > > objectClass: ads-base > > createTimestamp: 20190430090357.476Z > > creatorsName: 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1=admin,2.5.4.11=system > > ads-indexAttributeId: uniqueMember > > ads-enabled: TRUE > > entryUUID: dcd2fa31-5ee0-48fb-9d3e-30487957045a > > entryParentId: fdf6f3a6-dfaf-4b1a-962c-faa14328d1ae > > > > Could you please advice? > > > -- Sergey Mikhno
Re: uniqueMember Index
Thank you again, Is it possible to get a fix for this issue, how should we go about it? It would be great to be able to test a bugfix in our environment. Best Regards Sergey On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:24 PM Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > Ok, this a clear bug. The UniqueMemberComparator.compare() method is > badly implemented, and returns either 0 or -1, which means we can't > browse the index, as we never get a +1 (ie, provided uniqueMember is > superior to the stored one). > > I'll get that fixed. > > On 30/04/2019 15:59, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > > Hi Sergey, > > > > > > I can positively confirm that there is a problem. I'm able to > > reproduce the issue you are facing in a unit test. > > > > I'm currently debugging the server, and hope to come with a quick > > answer (and hopefully a fix). > > > > > > On 30/04/2019 11:33, Sergey Mikhno wrote: > >> Dear Emmanuel, > >> > >> I spent now more than a week trying to understand why uniqueMember index > >> doesn't work and still have no progress in understanding the problem. > >> > >> With a defined index on uniqueMember my query brings empty result > >> > >> *(**&* > >> > >> *(*objectclass*=*groupOfUniqueNames*)* > >> > >> *(**|* > >> > >> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=galexisLoginPOS*)* > >> > >> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerGalexis*)* > >> > >> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerAlloga*)* > >> > >> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=isDemo*)* > >> > >> *)* > >> > >> *)* > >> > >> > >> > >> Without index the query brings correct results but is slow, 300ms. > >> Is there any description about how to define an index on uniqueMember. > >> > >> We have several other non-standard indexed attributes and all of them > >> are > >> working. > >> As I understand it should be possible to define an index on both > >> member and > >> uniqieMember. > >> > >> So I have 2 questions: > >> 1. Is it correct that this query is slow because there is no index? > >> 2. How should I define such an index? > >> > >> Below is the current index definition > >> dn: > >> > ads-indexAttributeId=uniqueMember,ou=indexes,ads-partitionId=system,ou=parti > > >> > >> tions,ads-directoryServiceId=default,ou=config > >> ads-indexHasReverse: FALSE > >> entryCSN: 20190430090357.476000Z#00#001#00 > >> objectClass: ads-index > >> objectClass: top > >> objectClass: ads-jdbmIndex > >> objectClass: ads-base > >> createTimestamp: 20190430090357.476Z > >> creatorsName: 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1=admin,2.5.4.11=system > >> ads-indexAttributeId: uniqueMember > >> ads-enabled: TRUE > >> entryUUID: dcd2fa31-5ee0-48fb-9d3e-30487957045a > >> entryParentId: fdf6f3a6-dfaf-4b1a-962c-faa14328d1ae > >> > >> Could you please advice? > >> > -- Sergey Mikhno
Re: uniqueMember Index
Hi Emmanuel, Could you please give me some feedback on my questions. 1. Why do we have a ClassNotFounfException DeepTr imCachingNormalizingComparator when starting our ApacheDS server with AM25 Release jar. ( https://www-eu.apache.org/dist//directory/apacheds/dist/2.0.0.AM25/apacheds-2.0.0.AM25.zip ) 2. Is it important that we have one failing test UberJarMainTest.repairTest, I did some debugging and found that server sends INSUFFICIENT_ACCESS_RIGHTS Response, that is why NullPointerException occurs. Best Regards Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:08 PM Sergey Mikhno wrote: > Hi Emmanuel, > > I wanted to inform you what are the results of our testing. > 1. Starting the Release AM25 throws an Exception (ClassNotFounfException > DeepTrimCachingNormalizingComparator) > 2. AM25-SNAPSHOT starts normally but we cannot use uniqueMember index, > because the query brings empty result. > 3. M24 works OK with 2 changes - your commit > f995af78cca156071ab30f00a6615bd82911c4a1 > and one more fix (compareTo method from 2.0.0AM2), we can use > uniqueMember index. > 4. directory-server build has Test problems: Failed tests: > NullPointerException > UberJarMainTest.repairTest:208 > UberJarMainTest.serviceInstanceTest:184 > > Could you please advice, what could be wrong? > > > Sergey Mikhno > Software Developer > Galexis AG > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:33 AM Sergey Mikhno > wrote: > >> Dear Emmanuel, >> >> I spent now more than a week trying to understand why uniqueMember index >> doesn't work and still have no progress in understanding the problem. >> >> With a defined index on uniqueMember my query brings empty result >> >> *(**&* >> >> *(*objectclass*=*groupOfUniqueNames*)* >> >> *(**|* >> >> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=galexisLoginPOS*)* >> >> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerGalexis*)* >> >> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerAlloga*)* >> >> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=isDemo*)* >> >> *)* >> >> *)* >> >> >> >> Without index the query brings correct results but is slow, 300ms. >> Is there any description about how to define an index on uniqueMember. >> >> We have several other non-standard indexed attributes and all of them are >> working. >> As I understand it should be possible to define an index on both member >> and uniqieMember. >> >> So I have 2 questions: >> 1. Is it correct that this query is slow because there is no index? >> 2. How should I define such an index? >> >> Below is the current index definition >> dn: >> ads-indexAttributeId=uniqueMember,ou=indexes,ads-partitionId=system,ou=parti >> tions,ads-directoryServiceId=default,ou=config >> ads-indexHasReverse: FALSE >> entryCSN: 20190430090357.476000Z#00#001#00 >> objectClass: ads-index >> objectClass: top >> objectClass: ads-jdbmIndex >> objectClass: ads-base >> createTimestamp: 20190430090357.476Z >> creatorsName: 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1=admin,2.5.4.11=system >> ads-indexAttributeId: uniqueMember >> ads-enabled: TRUE >> entryUUID: dcd2fa31-5ee0-48fb-9d3e-30487957045a >> entryParentId: fdf6f3a6-dfaf-4b1a-962c-faa14328d1ae >> >> Could you please advice? >> >> -- >> Sergey Mikhno >> > > > -- > Sergey Mikhno > -- Sergey Mikhno
Re: uniqueMember Index
Hi Emmanuel, We built the trunk today and the results are as follows: UniqueMember query without index has become faster, the same query with the index gives empty result back. Is it possible that our index definition is wrong? We are defining the index in Apache Directory Studio. The Comparator looks to be correct. What can be the problem? Best regards Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 3:01 PM Sergey Mikhno wrote: > Hi Emmanuel, > > I can see now that you have already fixed the problem. > We have M24 running now, how can I use your fix in our environment? > Or otherwise how can I build the latest snapshot to be able to verify it? > > Best regards > > Sergey Mikhno > Software Developer > Galexis AG > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:40 PM Emmanuel Lécharny > wrote: > >> I have created a JIRA ticket for this issue: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRAPI-340 >> >> Incidentally, I also have a fix that I'm going to test and apply asap. >> (the fix is pretty straightforward) >> >> >> On 30/04/2019 16:29, Sergey Mikhno wrote: >> > Thank you again, >> > >> > Is it possible to get a fix for this issue, how should we go about it? >> > It would be great to be able to test a bugfix in our environment. >> > >> > Best Regards >> > >> > Sergey >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:24 PM Emmanuel Lécharny >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Ok, this a clear bug. The UniqueMemberComparator.compare() method is >> >> badly implemented, and returns either 0 or -1, which means we can't >> >> browse the index, as we never get a +1 (ie, provided uniqueMember is >> >> superior to the stored one). >> >> >> >> I'll get that fixed. >> >> >> >> On 30/04/2019 15:59, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: >> >>> Hi Sergey, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I can positively confirm that there is a problem. I'm able to >> >>> reproduce the issue you are facing in a unit test. >> >>> >> >>> I'm currently debugging the server, and hope to come with a quick >> >>> answer (and hopefully a fix). >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 30/04/2019 11:33, Sergey Mikhno wrote: >> >>>> Dear Emmanuel, >> >>>> >> >>>> I spent now more than a week trying to understand why uniqueMember >> index >> >>>> doesn't work and still have no progress in understanding the problem. >> >>>> >> >>>> With a defined index on uniqueMember my query brings empty result >> >>>> >> >>>> *(**&* >> >>>> >> >>>> *(*objectclass*=*groupOfUniqueNames*)* >> >>>> >> >>>> *(**|* >> >>>> >> >>>> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=galexisLoginPOS*)* >> >>>> >> >>>> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerGalexis*)* >> >>>> >> >>>> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerAlloga*)* >> >>>> >> >>>> *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=isDemo*)* >> >>>> >> >>>> *)* >> >>>> >> >>>> *)* >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Without index the query brings correct results but is slow, 300ms. >> >>>> Is there any description about how to define an index on >> uniqueMember. >> >>>> >> >>>> We have several other non-standard indexed attributes and all of them >> >>>> are >> >>>> working. >> >>>> As I understand it should be possible to define an index on both >> >>>> member and >> >>>> uniqieMember. >> >>>> >> >>>> So I have 2 questions: >> >>>> 1. Is it correct that this query is slow because there is no index? >> >>>> 2. How should I define such an index? >> >>>> >> >>>> Below is the current index definition >> >>>> dn: >> >>>> >> >> >> ads-indexAttributeId=uniqueMember,ou=indexes,ads-partitionId=system,ou=parti >> >> >> >>>>tions,ads-directoryServiceId=default,ou=config >> >>>> ads-indexHasReverse: FALSE >> >>>> entryCSN: 20190430090357.476000Z#00#001#00 >> >>>> objectClass: ads-index >> >>>> objectClass: top >> >>>> objectClass: ads-jdbmIndex >> >>>> objectClass: ads-base >> >>>> createTimestamp: 20190430090357.476Z >> >>>> creatorsName: 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1=admin,2.5.4.11=system >> >>>> ads-indexAttributeId: uniqueMember >> >>>> ads-enabled: TRUE >> >>>> entryUUID: dcd2fa31-5ee0-48fb-9d3e-30487957045a >> >>>> entryParentId: fdf6f3a6-dfaf-4b1a-962c-faa14328d1ae >> >>>> >> >>>> Could you please advice? >> >>>> >> > >> > > > -- > Sergey Mikhno > -- Sergey Mikhno
Re: uniqueMember Index
Hi Emmanuel, I wanted to inform you what are the results of our testing. 1. Starting the Release AM25 throws an Exception (ClassNotFounfException DeepTrimCachingNormalizingComparator) 2. AM25-SNAPSHOT starts normally but we cannot use uniqueMember index, because the query brings empty result. 3. M24 works OK with 2 changes - your commit f995af78cca156071ab30f00a6615bd82911c4a1 and one more fix (compareTo method from 2.0.0AM2), we can use uniqueMember index. 4. directory-server build has Test problems: Failed tests: NullPointerException UberJarMainTest.repairTest:208 UberJarMainTest.serviceInstanceTest:184 Could you please advice, what could be wrong? Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:33 AM Sergey Mikhno wrote: > Dear Emmanuel, > > I spent now more than a week trying to understand why uniqueMember index > doesn't work and still have no progress in understanding the problem. > > With a defined index on uniqueMember my query brings empty result > > *(**&* > > *(*objectclass*=*groupOfUniqueNames*)* > > *(**|* > > *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=galexisLoginPOS*)* > > *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerGalexis*)* > > *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=customerAlloga*)* > > *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=isDemo*)* > > *)* > > *)* > > > > Without index the query brings correct results but is slow, 300ms. > Is there any description about how to define an index on uniqueMember. > > We have several other non-standard indexed attributes and all of them are > working. > As I understand it should be possible to define an index on both member > and uniqieMember. > > So I have 2 questions: > 1. Is it correct that this query is slow because there is no index? > 2. How should I define such an index? > > Below is the current index definition > dn: > ads-indexAttributeId=uniqueMember,ou=indexes,ads-partitionId=system,ou=parti > tions,ads-directoryServiceId=default,ou=config > ads-indexHasReverse: FALSE > entryCSN: 20190430090357.476000Z#00#001#00 > objectClass: ads-index > objectClass: top > objectClass: ads-jdbmIndex > objectClass: ads-base > createTimestamp: 20190430090357.476Z > creatorsName: 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1=admin,2.5.4.11=system > ads-indexAttributeId: uniqueMember > ads-enabled: TRUE > entryUUID: dcd2fa31-5ee0-48fb-9d3e-30487957045a > entryParentId: fdf6f3a6-dfaf-4b1a-962c-faa14328d1ae > > Could you please advice? > > -- > Sergey Mikhno > -- Sergey Mikhno
Re: ERR_5 Attempted operation MODIFY_REQUEST by unauthenticated caller.
Hi Emmanuel, I had to check which connection pool we are using and see now that our configuration looks like this: LdapConnectionConfig config = *new* LdapConnectionConfig(); config.setLdapHost(apacheDSHost); config.setLdapPort(apacheDSPort); config.setName(writeUser); config.setCredentials(writePassword); GenericObjectPoolConfig poolConfig = *new* GenericObjectPoolConfig<>(); poolConfig.setLifo(*true*); poolConfig.setMaxTotal(600); poolConfig.setMaxIdle(128); poolConfig.setMaxWaitMillis(-1L); poolConfig.setMinEvictableIdleTimeMillis(1000L * 60L * 30L); poolConfig.setMinIdle(8); poolConfig.setNumTestsPerEvictionRun(3); poolConfig.setSoftMinEvictableIdleTimeMillis(-1L); poolConfig.setTestOnBorrow(*true*); poolConfig.setTestOnReturn(*false*); poolConfig.setTestWhileIdle(*false*); poolConfig.setTimeBetweenEvictionRunsMillis(-1L); *return* *new* LdapConnectionPool(factory, poolConfig); Could you please check if out connection pool configuration is correct, or maybe some property needs a change. Some more info: We have approximately 800 requests per minute. Best Regards Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:11 PM Sergey Mikhno wrote: > We are using 2.0.0.AM24 > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:05 PM Emmanuel Lécharny > wrote: > >> >> On 01/07/2019 15:51, Sergey Mikhno wrote: >> > Thank you, Emmanuel, >> > >> > We'll activate this logger and see what happens. >> >> >> The idea is just to rule out the possibility that a Anonymous request is >> done. There are two possibility for that to happen : >> >> - an anonymous bind followed by a request. In this case, the request >> message ID would be > 1 >> >> - a direct request from a non bound session (it will be an anonymous >> request then) and the request messageID would be 1 >> >> >> Sadly the logs don't register the session IP nor do we create a session >> ID which would help us tracking a full session. This is probably two >> things we should do... >> >> >> Can you tell me which ApacheDS version you are using ? >> >> >> Tanks ! >> >> > > -- > Sergey Mikhno > -- Sergey Mikhno
ERR_5 Attempted operation MODIFY_REQUEST by unauthenticated caller.
Dear Emmanuel We are using ApacheDS to authenticate our users. ApacheDS connections are in the connection Apache GenericObjectPool version 2.6. All the connections in the pool have user name and password specified and are authenticated (as far as we understand). We are using TestOnBorrow from the pool, and borrowing a connection the pool tests if connection is authenticated. Our problem is that sometimes (more that 50 times a day) we see following error messages in apacheds.log 01.07.2019 01:41:18,487 ERROR [pool-6-thread-766] org.apache.directory.server.core.authn.AuthenticationInterceptor.checkAuthenticated():1354 - ERR_5 Attempted operation MODIFY_REQUEST by unauthenticated caller. 01.07.2019 01:41:24,617 ERROR [pool-6-thread-766] org.apache.directory.server.core.authn.AuthenticationInterceptor.checkAuthenticated():1354 - ERR_5 Attempted operation SEARCH_REQUEST by unauthenticated caller. Do you have any idea what could be wrong or what could we check to get rid of these error messages? Best Regards Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG -- Sergey Mikhno
uniqueMember index
Dear Users, I have a specific question about uniqueMember AT. We have a hierarchy of groups and permissions with several group levels. To be able to fetch all permissions which belong to hierarchical structure of groups we are using a following query *(**&* *(*objectclass*=*groupOfUniqueNames*)* *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=group1*)* ) and so on until we get the lowest hierarchy level. Each request with such a query takes approx. 0.5 seconds, we have several levels and the performance is far from perfect. Our idea was to create an index for the field uniqueMember to able to accelerate the query. Unfortunately after creation of the index the before mentioned query brings empty result. I found the following mailing list entry https://users.directory.apache.narkive.com/YsRnb95m/apacheds-2-0-0-m7-index-problem with a similar problem, it looks like the problem is still not fixed or we are doing something wrong. Could anyone please help us with this question? Best regards, Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG -- Sergey Mikhno
Re: uniqueMember index
Hi Emmanuel, Thank you for your answer, Yes we are using 2.0.0-M24 now, the bug is only an example of our problem. Bit the behavior described is very similar to what we have now in 2.0.0-M24 I have also tried to repair the Apacheds using apacheds.sh repair, but it didn’t help. Thank you again Sergey Mikhno On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 17:51, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > Hi, > > The bug was in 2.0.0-M7, which is nearly 7 years old... have you tried with > a newer version ? > > Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 17:45, Sergey Mikhno a > écrit : > > > Dear Users, > > > > I have a specific question about uniqueMember AT. > > > > We have a hierarchy of groups and permissions with several group levels. > > > > To be able to fetch all permissions which belong to hierarchical > structure > > of groups we are using a following query > > > > *(**&* > > *(*objectclass*=*groupOfUniqueNames*)* > > *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=group1*)* > > ) > > > > and so on until we get the lowest hierarchy level. > > > > Each request with such a query takes approx. 0.5 seconds, we have several > > levels and the performance is far from perfect. > > > > Our idea was to create an index for the field uniqueMember to able to > > accelerate the query. > > Unfortunately after creation of the index the before mentioned query > brings > > empty result. > > > > I found the following mailing list entry > > > > > https://users.directory.apache.narkive.com/YsRnb95m/apacheds-2-0-0-m7-index-problem > > with > > a similar problem, it looks like the problem is still not fixed or we are > > doing something wrong. > > > > Could anyone please help us with this question? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Sergey Mikhno > > Software Developer > > Galexis AG > > > > > > -- > > Sergey Mikhno > > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > -- Sergey Mikhno
Re: uniqueMember index
Hi Emmanuel, Today I tried to use GroupOfNames and member field for group membership and created an index for "member", that index looks to be working properly. Could you please tell me if there is still a bug with the uniqueMember Index? If there is no bug how can I create such an index and keep all my queries working. If there is a bug, perhaps I could convert all my groups into GroupOfNames, is there any simple way to do so? Thank you Best regards Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:57 PM Sergey Mikhno wrote: > Hi Emmanuel, > > Thank you for your answer, > Yes we are using 2.0.0-M24 now, the bug is only an example of our problem. > Bit the behavior described is very similar to what we have now in 2.0.0-M24 > > I have also tried to repair the Apacheds using apacheds.sh repair, but it > didn’t help. > > Thank you again > > Sergey Mikhno > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 17:51, Emmanuel Lecharny > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The bug was in 2.0.0-M7, which is nearly 7 years old... have you tried >> with >> a newer version ? >> >> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 17:45, Sergey Mikhno a >> écrit : >> >> > Dear Users, >> > >> > I have a specific question about uniqueMember AT. >> > >> > We have a hierarchy of groups and permissions with several group levels. >> > >> > To be able to fetch all permissions which belong to hierarchical >> structure >> > of groups we are using a following query >> > >> > *(**&* >> > *(*objectclass*=*groupOfUniqueNames*)* >> > *(*uniqueMember*=*cn=group1*)* >> > ) >> > >> > and so on until we get the lowest hierarchy level. >> > >> > Each request with such a query takes approx. 0.5 seconds, we have >> several >> > levels and the performance is far from perfect. >> > >> > Our idea was to create an index for the field uniqueMember to able to >> > accelerate the query. >> > Unfortunately after creation of the index the before mentioned query >> brings >> > empty result. >> > >> > I found the following mailing list entry >> > >> > >> https://users.directory.apache.narkive.com/YsRnb95m/apacheds-2-0-0-m7-index-problem >> > with >> > a similar problem, it looks like the problem is still not fixed or we >> are >> > doing something wrong. >> > >> > Could anyone please help us with this question? >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > Sergey Mikhno >> > Software Developer >> > Galexis AG >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Sergey Mikhno >> > >> -- >> Regards, >> Cordialement, >> Emmanuel Lécharny >> www.iktek.com >> > -- > Sergey Mikhno > -- Sergey Mikhno
ApacheDS db corrupt
) at org.apache.directory.server.core.authn.AuthenticationInterceptor.modify(AuthenticationInterceptor.java:890) at org.apache.directory.server.core.api.interceptor.BaseInterceptor.next(BaseInterceptor.java:506) at org.apache.directory.server.core.normalization.NormalizationInterceptor.modify(NormalizationInterceptor.java:216) at org.apache.directory.server.core.DefaultOperationManager.modify(DefaultOperationManager.java:886) at org.apache.directory.server.core.shared.DefaultCoreSession.modify(DefaultCoreSession.java:975) at org.apache.directory.server.core.shared.DefaultCoreSession.modify(DefaultCoreSession.java:958) at org.apache.directory.server.ldap.handlers.request.ModifyRequestHandler.handle(ModifyRequestHandler.java:56) at org.apache.directory.server.ldap.handlers.request.ModifyRequestHandler.handle(ModifyRequestHandler.java:39) at org.apache.directory.server.ldap.handlers.LdapRequestHandler.handleMessage(LdapRequestHandler.java:207) at org.apache.directory.server.ldap.handlers.LdapRequestHandler.handleMessage(LdapRequestHandler.java:56) at org.apache.mina.handler.demux.DemuxingIoHandler.messageReceived(DemuxingIoHandler.java:243) at org.apache.directory.server.ldap.LdapProtocolHandler.messageReceived(LdapProtocolHandler.java:216) at org.apache.mina.core.filterchain.DefaultIoFilterChain$TailFilter.messageReceived(DefaultIoFilterChain.java:858) at org.apache.mina.core.filterchain.DefaultIoFilterChain.callNextMessageReceived(DefaultIoFilterChain.java:542) at org.apache.mina.core.filterchain.DefaultIoFilterChain.access$1300(DefaultIoFilterChain.java:48) at org.apache.mina.core.filterchain.DefaultIoFilterChain$EntryImpl$1.messageReceived(DefaultIoFilterChain.java:947) at org.apache.mina.core.filterchain.IoFilterEvent.fire(IoFilterEvent.java:74) at org.apache.mina.core.session.IoEvent.run(IoEvent.java:63) at org.apache.mina.filter.executor.UnorderedThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(UnorderedThreadPoolExecutor.java:476) at org.apache.mina.filter.executor.UnorderedThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(UnorderedThreadPoolExecutor.java:430) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748) Best Regards Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG --
Filter is null after normalisation
Dear Emmanuel
Our Apache DS sever produces a huge amount of warnings with the following
message
undefined filter based on undefined attributeType not evaluted at all.
Returning empty enumeration.
29.10.2019 08:17:44,796 WARN [pool-6-thread-15719]
org.apache.directory.server.core.normalization.NormalizationInterceptor.search():294
- undefined filter based on undefined attributeType not evaluted at
all. Returning empty enumeration.
it looks like this in code
// Normalize the filter
filter = ( ExprNode ) filter.accept( normVisitor );
if ( filter == null )
{
line 294:LOG.warn( "undefined filter based on undefined
attributeType not evaluted at all. Returning empty enumeration." );
return new EntryFilteringCursorImpl( new EmptyCursor(),
searchContext, schemaManager );
}
Is it possible to find out without debugging, why
FilterNormalizingVisitor returns null
from normalizeValue method?
With Best Regards
Sergey Mikhno
Software Developer
Galexis AG
--
Sergey Mikhno
Upgrade ApacheDS to AM26
Dear Emmanuel, We are using ApacheDS M24 in production. I am trying now to upgrade to the latest version and have the following problem starting the server: org.apache.directory.api.ldap.model.exception.LdapUnwillingToPerformException: ERR_16057_CANNOT_FIND_CMP_CLASS Cannot find the comparator class: org.apache.directory.api.ldap.model.schema.comparators.DeepTrimCachingNormalizingComparator apacheds_1 | at org.apache.directory.api.ldap.schema.loader.SchemaEntityFactory.getLdapComparator(SchemaEntityFactory.java:729) .. I am starting with an empty partition. What should I do to be able to start the server? Is there any documentation on how to upgrade to the latest version? Best regards Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG -- Sergey Mikhno
ApacheDS DB Entries copy issue
Dear Emmanuel, We are having a very urgent problem to solve. We have a JDBM database corruption issue and our backups are not 100% consistent, but we have some ApacheDS instances from where we can copy some entries. The specific problem is that we are trying to export users which have the permissions to modify entries in ou=system, if we include "Operational Attributes" we cannot import the users for example because of the following error : "INSUFFICUENT_PRIVILEGES". We are using our uid=admin,ou=system user to export/import the entries. Could you please tell us what the correct process to do such export/import is. May be there is some other way how we can create users who can create and modify entries in ou=system. Our Apache DS version is 2.0.0.AM24 -- Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG
Re: ApacheDS DB Entries copy issue
Dear Emmanuel, Thank you for your answer, but it is exactly our problem, we really need the operational attributes, and we have an error message that "uid=admin,ou=system" doesn't have the rights to copy them. Did wir forget to give some permission to "admin"? Best Regards Sergey Mikhno On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > > On 17/03/2020 10:41, Sergey Mikhno wrote: > > Dear Emmanuel, > > > > We are having a very urgent problem to solve. > > We have a JDBM database corruption issue and our backups are not 100% > > consistent, > > but we have some ApacheDS instances from where we can copy some entries. > > > > The specific problem is that we are trying to export users which have > > the permissions to modify > > entries in ou=system, if we include "Operational Attributes" we cannot > > import the users for example because of the following error : > > "INSUFFICUENT_PRIVILEGES". > > Do you really need to include operational attributes ? > > > If so, the only way is to use the uid=admin to import the entries. > > > -- Sergey Mikhno
ApacheDS AM26 upgrade issue
Dear Emmanuel, We have upgraded our servers to the latest version of Apache DS AM26. The functionality looks good, but we have a slight issue, there is a specific warning WARN [org.apache.directory.api.ldap.model.entry.Value] - MSG_13202_AT_IS_NULL () which appears not only at start time, but at runtime as well. I am not sure if this warning comes only after importing our custom schema elements or is it there directly after starting an empty new instance. Our installation has several custom object classes and attribute types but I don't know if this warning has anything to do with our schema elements. Could you please advise what we can do with this warning. There is a reported issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSERVER-2266 reporting in 2.0.0AM25 where this warning is mentioned. Your help is much appreciated, Best regards -- Sergey Mikhno Software developer Galexis AG
Re: ApacheDS AM26 upgrade issue
Dear Emmanuel, As step one I exported the our cn=galexis,ou=schema as LDIF file on an old (AM24) server and then imported in Apache Directory Studio. I tried copy paste in Apache Directory Studio as well. I also found that for one of our object classes I needed to add m-supobjectclass, otherwise we the operational attributes for objects having our object classes didn't work. You can find our cn=galexis in the attached LDIF file. Best Regards Sergey Mikhno Software Developer Galexis AG On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 2:36 PM Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > hi Sergey, > > > On 23/10/2020 14:10, Sergey Mikhno wrote: > > Dear Emmanuel, > > > > We have upgraded our servers to the latest version of Apache DS AM26. > > The functionality looks good, but we have a slight issue, there is a > > specific warning WARN > > [org.apache.directory.api.ldap.model.entry.Value] - > > MSG_13202_AT_IS_NULL () which appears not only at start time, but at > > runtime as well. > > > > I am not sure if this warning comes only after importing our custom > > schema elements or is it there directly after starting an empty new > > instance. > > > Seems like it's after you imported your own schema, accordingly to the log. > > > > > Our installation has several custom object classes and attribute types > > but I don't know if this warning has anything to do with our schema > > elements. > > > > Could you please advise what we can do with this warning. > > > > There is a reported issue > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSERVER-2266 reporting in > > 2.0.0AM25 where this warning is mentioned. > > > > Your help is much appreciated, > > This is a weird issue... The logs say that it tries to read the > 'creatorsName' attribute, which has no value. That does not make a lot > of sense. > > How did you import the schema ? > > > > > > Best regards > > > > -- > > Sergey Mikhno > > Software developer > > Galexis AG > > > -- Sergey Mikhno - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@directory.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@directory.apache.org
