On Friday 25 June 2004 12:07 pm, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote: > indeed, but i can't take that risk without knowing the specific details for > sure. this is a production system with thousands of customers. > > would Bill Shupp possibly know?
I wrote the code. Bill might know. What you can do is keep the original data, then update and add a domain. If it doesn't work, put the old data back. It only is used when adding domains not users. Also, if you have a different machine for testing, add domains until it starts adding to the /0/ directory, and use those settings. Ken > > At 10:00 AM 6/25/2004, Ken Jones wrote: > >It might be as simple as changing the two "5" entries to "0" > >which from your listing below looks like the level_index0 and the_dir > > columns > > > >Ken Jones > > > >On Friday 25 June 2004 11:23 am, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote: > > > sooo - nobody knows where the directory 'incrementer' lives? Tom? i > > > have no fix? i'm stuck with going from > > > > > > /u1/domains/0/abc.com to > > > /u1/domains/5/def.com > > > > > > ?? no way to get the system to resume creating new domains under the > > > more logical /u1/domains/1/def.com? > > > > > > i mean, yeah - i can live with it. it's not affecting actual > > > functionality. > > > > > > At 12:16 PM 6/23/2004, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote: > > > >well, now it's incremented up to '5'. eesh. what i've found in > > > > perusing the mysql backend db, is the following: > > > > > > > >mysql> select * from dir_control where domain = 'dom_89'; > > > >+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------------+--------- > > > >---- > > > > -+--------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ > > > >----- > > > > -------+------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--- > > > >----- -+ > > > > > > > >| domain | cur_users | level_cur | level_max | level_start0 | > > > >| level_start1 level_start2 | level_end0 | level_end1 | level_end2 | > > > >| level_mod0 | > > > > > > > >level_mod1 | level_mod2 | level_index0 | level_index1 | level_index2 | > > > >the_dir | > > > >+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------------+--------- > > > >---- > > > > -+--------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ > > > >----- > > > > -------+------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--- > > > >----- -+ > > > > > > > >| dom_89 | 201 | 0 | 3 | 0 | > > > >| 0 0 | 61 | 61 | 61 | 0 2 | > > > >| 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | > > > > > > > >5 | > > > >+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------------+--------- > > > >---- > > > > -+--------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ > > > >----- > > > > -------+------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--- > > > >----- -+ 1 row in set (0.00 sec) > > > > > > > > > > > >there is no domain dom_89, which suggests to me this may be the > > > > 'master control' for what overflow subdirectory is to be used - it's > > > > the only record that has '5' for the value 'the_dir', and '89' is the > > > > vpopmail uid/gid. > > > > > > > >however, i'm reluctant to make changes to the record, for fear of, > > > > well, duh - completely destroying my setup with one bad keystroke. > > > > > > > >so, if anyone can confirm my speculations, and suggest how to fix it > > > >(that's right, i've never inserted data manually into a table!), i'd > > > >appreciate the help. > > > > > > Paul Theodoropoulos > > > http://www.anastrophe.com > > Paul Theodoropoulos > http://www.anastrophe.com
