[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: (ITS#5189) slapadd -q breaks db_stat -c

hyc@symas.com writes:
>h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no wrote:
>> quanah@zimbra.com writes:
>>> You have to run slapd at least once before using the db_stat tool
>>> after using slapadd -q.  This is a known feature of using -q.
>> Ah, need doc fix in slapadd.8 then.
> What exactly are you trying to do?

Playing around, mostly.

> slapadd -q disables locking,

I don't see that in the doc.  It's reasonable to infer, except I have no
idea why even slapadd (without -q) needs so many.  I couldn't find an
explanation of what does use locks and lockers (FAQ file 893 doesn't
say), thus not how many I will need and which of these limits is fatal
if I have too few.  Can experiment to find out the latter, of course.

Sleepycat messages can be scary.  I came from the slapadd "wrong dynamic
library" or message or whatever it was which the mailinglist says is
cured with more locks & lockers, so I increased those and just got
another error message (this ITs).  So apparently, something still wrong.
"Not configured for the locking subsystem" sounded like a permanent
problem with the database build, not that it would get "reconfigured" to
support locking when needed.  Hence this report.  Oh well.

> so of course there's nothing for db_stat -c to report.  There's no
> breakage here.