[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21
Michael Ströder [firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
> Just for the records: OpenLDAP often complains about alock package even
> when using back-bdb or back-hdb.
Also for the record: Messages from the alock package should not be ignored
lightly (not to say that Michael implied they could be). I'll note that
since the package's introduction, the number of posts concerning back-bdb
"lockup" situations where the solution was to manually invoke db_recover
have gone to near zero.
Cases where alock reports "alock package is unstable" should be reported in
the ITS system, as they indicate a bad parameter was passed to an alock
function or that an out-of sequence call to an alock function took place. At
the very least db_recover should be performed manually if something like
Calls to alock were added to back-ldbm to detect cases where the db has been
tainted due to system panics, power losses, or slapd crashes. Since there
are no recovery capabilities in back-ldbm there is not much that can be done
to restore complete confidence in the database in the event of a complaint
from alock short of restoring from a backup.
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP:
> Ciao, Michael.