[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: slapd(8) adds objects without adding structuralObjectClass -> blocks replication
- To: Quanah Gibson-Mount <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: slapd(8) adds objects without adding structuralObjectClass -> blocks replication
- From: Christian Haugan Toldnes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:38:56 +0100
- Cc: email@example.com
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eUO/gw8emT0ENjF/z8e9DgfibmJS9YK5Ze8mwxqHWJg=; b=geszejQqZkva8djVc28b3aRtKXySI+gMEsziqx7ukwOQunlGhF0oxq3ymaqHyVjQwP d2+/qFTUEBC8mebWIt/sKAGYymVSd/yI0Z57HVyVcPlq2Hq/qkGncK1pW6pn5a6ffzrB LEyGF3yhOoFpgrvyv4Qmdl2vgDPpZGLtK61mk=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=USoJkXEypTnA46r1yGa0hrrt/R+gzyUYCHgHfVrYKlC8sGi4UIv0RiGavYwnhGCueQ 46KwO7taCdbVRtiBbo55xBpTxogcSeKq7kbdCz8th16vgJFcXypTDZeJJJKD18oXAG9q RkM2kYvWXodQ5xSShIb0Bshocpo3FW78pOkA8=
- In-reply-to: <3C2AB39D04F770C981806A09@[192.168.1.199]>
- References: <4AF02284.firstname.lastname@example.org> <5932ACC25F753898A7F4E238@[192.168.1.199]> <4AF16347.email@example.com> <4AF18299.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3C2AB39D04F770C981806A09@[192.168.1.199]>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (X11/20090817)
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:33 PM +0100 Jonathan Clarke
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 04/11/2009 12:19, Christian Haugan Toldnes wrote:
>>> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>>>> --On Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:31 PM +0100 Christian Haugan Toldnes
>>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>> I'm running openldap 2.4.9 (Ubuntu 8.04.3) in a N-way multimaster
>>>>> with two masters and two slaves.
>>>>> Can anyone point me in the right direction here?
>>>> I'd suggest you upgrade to the latest stable release (2.4.19).
>>> I would have, if that version was provided by the distribution
>>> maintainers. However, it is not. Using a selv-maintained package, or
>>> even worse, building software directly on our production environment is
>>> not a very viable solution. Anyone with more than some experience in
>>> systems administration will tell you the same thing.
> In addition to what Jonathon notes, I've been a system administrator for
> years. And as a System administrator with years of experience, who has
> run LDAP servers for nearly a decade, I will tell you that you are very,
> very wrong, and very specifically that relying on distro provided builds
> of an LDAP server is a very fatal mistake.
As you are several people telling me this, and obviously more
experienced in LDAP administration than I am, I will of course consider
updating. I'm no hard-headed person, and am always open for changing my
point of view when it's apparent they don't match reality.
I do have to wonder though; does this mean that it's commonly known in
the LDAP community that distributiors are notoriously bad at maintaining
LDAP server packages in general, as opposed to other software? Or do you
consider this advice to be general to all server software, in which case
I would have to disagree.. :)