I was wondering if BerkeleyDB 4.3.28 was suitable for production use
with OL 2.3.7.
There were some continuing issues with syncprov in 2.3.7 that are now fixed
in HEAD.
--Quanah
Hmm, I haven't been seeing issues, but I'm interested in what those are.
I was planning on moving 2.3.7 to
$ ldapmodify -x -D cn=Manager,o=Example -w secret
dn: cn=Subschema
add: objectClasses
objectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.21924.99.1 NAME 'fooObjectClass'
DESC 'Boo' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST ( cn $ objectclass ) )
modifying entry cn=Subschema
ldap_modify: Invalid syntax (21)
additional
How is your testing doing with OL 2.3.7 and BerkeleyDB 4.3.28?
I was wondering if BerkeleyDB 4.3.28 was suitable for production use
with OL 2.3.7.
So far, things are looking good with 2.3.7 and bdb 4.3.28. For my recent
test, I did a dump on my production directory and imported it into my
Hello!
I installed two 2.3.4 server. In the first I added 33 MB of test data
under ou=admindepot,ou=foo,o=bar (slapadd) and added the
syncprovider-overlay conf in slapd.conf.
In the second server I just add the initial ou=admindepot,ou=foo,o=bar
entries und configured syncconsumer in
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
modifying entry cn=Subschema
ldap_modify: Invalid syntax (21)
additional info: objectClasses: value #0 invalid per syntax
It's objectClass, not objectClasses, last time I read a schema.
Quanah, the attribute in the sub schema sub entry is indeed called
Adam Pordzik wrote:
$ ldapmodify -x -D cn=Manager,o=Example -w secret
dn: cn=Subschema
add: objectClasses
objectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.21924.99.1 NAME 'fooObjectClass'
DESC 'Boo' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST ( cn $ objectclass ) )
modifying entry cn=Subschema
ldap_modify: Invalid syntax
Juan Carlos Sanchez Recio wrote:
I have created new schema file, and it is giving me some problems.
this is the schema file:
# As this is an experimental definition we'll use OIDs under 1.1
# Attribute type jfvPerms
attributetype ( 1.1.50.1.1
NAME 'jfvPerms'
DESC 'Permissions value for
Meybe I'm wrong: I'm quite new to this list, but is seems that the problem is
due to limits to the size of the replication log file.
It is probably better if you first setup the replication matters between the
servers with an empty db, start both the servers and finally populate the db
with
--On Monday, September 12, 2005 10:00 AM -0400 Dusty Doris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering if BerkeleyDB 4.3.28 was suitable for production use
with OL 2.3.7.
There were some continuing issues with syncprov in 2.3.7 that are now
fixed in HEAD.
--Quanah
Hmm, I haven't been
--On Monday, September 12, 2005 9:58 AM -0400 Dusty Doris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is your testing doing with OL 2.3.7 and BerkeleyDB 4.3.28?
I was wondering if BerkeleyDB 4.3.28 was suitable for production use
with OL 2.3.7.
So far, things are looking good with 2.3.7 and bdb
Hi!
I wonder if anyone has any pointers on what to look for when investigating why
slapd stops processing search requests.
It always stops after it's done 24 searches, no matter the order I do the
search. The slapd is running thoug, no heavy load on the server and programs
can connect, but
For docs, see http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin23/slapdconf2.html
It is redundant to list the rootdn in any ACL clause; the rootdn always
has full privileges and ignores all ACLs. Listing the rootdn merely
makes ACL evaluation slower for regular users.
The order of directives in your
Hi All,
I am testing OL 2.3.7 on a Debian Sarge box.
I would like to implement the password policy overlay.
When I try to create a dn that would hold the password policy:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ldapmodify -vv -x -W -D
uid=stran,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com -H ldap://localhost -f
passwd_cn.ldif
--On Monday, September 12, 2005 5:10 PM -0700 Howard Chu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It looks like slapd's objectIdentifierMatch rule doesn't understand
descriptions (though it is supposed to). You'll have to use the numeric
OID instead, until that is fixed.
And file an ITS on this! :)
On Sunday 11 September 2005 20:23, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
Apparently, yes:
draft-ietf-ldapbis-models, section 2.6
An alias entry shall have no subordinates, so that an alias entry
is always a leaf entry.
/draft-ietf-ldapbis-models, section 2.6
What would be the best way?
The best thing to do would be to take a step back and think about
something else for a while. Then read through the LDAP specs and gain an
understanding of what facilities are already provided, and how to use
them to your advantage. Some things to think about -
16 matches
Mail list logo