openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
20984 discussions

[Bug 7573] back-perl not working with cn=config
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 26 Apr '20

26 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7573 Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hark(a)puscii.nl --- Comment #5 from Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> --- *** Bug 8591 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9017] Improving performance of commit sync in Windows
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Apr '20

25 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9017 --- Comment #22 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- Commits: • 8d0cbbc9 by Howard Chu at 2020-04-25T00:46:58+01:00 ITS#9017 cleanup Windows off_t -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9017] Improving performance of commit sync in Windows
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Apr '20

25 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9017 --- Comment #21 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> --- (In reply to kriszyp(a)gmail.com from comment #20) > > You ought to be able to use int64_t instead, or any other explicitly > > 64-bit signed integer type. > > Yes, that (#define MDB_OFF_T int64_t) compiles and works fine in all > my tests (including with >2GB dbs). I assume you can commit/fix this > (or do we want me to make a patch)? > Thanks, > Kris Committed with int64_t. Thanks for testing/verifying. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9017] Improving performance of commit sync in Windows
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Apr '20

25 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9017 Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |TEST Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9017] Improving performance of commit sync in Windows
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Apr '20

25 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9017 --- Comment #20 from kriszyp(a)gmail.com <kriszyp(a)gmail.com> --- > You ought to be able to use int64_t instead, or any other explicitly > 64-bit signed integer type. Yes, that (#define MDB_OFF_T int64_t) compiles and works fine in all my tests (including with >2GB dbs). I assume you can commit/fix this (or do we want me to make a patch)? Thanks, Kris -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8125] MMR throws away valid changes causing drift
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Apr '20

25 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8125 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |CONFIRMED Ever confirmed|0 |1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9017] Improving performance of commit sync in Windows
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 24 Apr '20

24 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9017 --- Comment #19 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> --- openldap-its(a)openldap.org wrote: > https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9017 > > --- Comment #18 from kriszyp(a)gmail.com <kriszyp(a)gmail.com> --- >> I've committed your first two patches as-is, > Thank you so much, appreciate the review and including this code. I > hope it helps other Windows users leverage the awesome LMDB > performance and integrity! > >> and taken a different approach for the off_t issue. > Unfortunately, this commit didn't work for me. LMDB no longer compiles > when using LARGE_INTEGER for offsets. Perhaps ULONG would work better? > I get the following compilation errors (or is there possibly something > I need to define to address this?): > > \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(3739): error C2440: '=': > cannot convert from 'pgno_t' to 'LA > RGE_INTEGER' [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] > \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(3744): error C2088: '!=': > illegal for union [C:\dev\node-lmd > b\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] > \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(3767): error C2088: '&': > illegal for union [ > \build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] Apparently LARGE_INTEGER isn't an integer at all, it appears to be a structure. You ought to be able to use int64_t instead, or any other explicitly 64-bit signed integer type. Since offsets can be forward or backward from a designated reference point, off_t and MDB_OFF_T must be a signed type. size_t is explicitly unsigned, so it is an error to use that for this purpose. It's also only 32 bits wide on a 32bit machine, so it'd be unsuitable for larger DBs. The use of MDB_OFF_T/off_t for env->me_size is a bit bogus, since a file size should be unsigned. But we don't have address spaces large enough yet for the difference between 2^63 and 2^64 to matter. (And also, the me_size field has actually never been used. Probably should just be deleted...) >> Do you still want the corresponding patch in 0.9? And can you please remind >> me where the 0.9 patch is? Thanks. > I could if you want, but you convinced me that using mdb.master and > focusing 1.0 was the way to go, so that's what we have been using for > the last few months (with my patches applied locally), and it has been > working great on our servers. I don't need an 0.9 patch, but I could > work on creating one if you think it is important. No, that's fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9017] Improving performance of commit sync in Windows
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 24 Apr '20

24 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9017 --- Comment #18 from kriszyp(a)gmail.com <kriszyp(a)gmail.com> --- > I've committed your first two patches as-is, Thank you so much, appreciate the review and including this code. I hope it helps other Windows users leverage the awesome LMDB performance and integrity! > and taken a different approach for the off_t issue. Unfortunately, this commit didn't work for me. LMDB no longer compiles when using LARGE_INTEGER for offsets. Perhaps ULONG would work better? I get the following compilation errors (or is there possibly something I need to define to address this?): \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(3739): error C2440: '=': cannot convert from 'pgno_t' to 'LA RGE_INTEGER' [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(3744): error C2088: '!=': illegal for union [C:\dev\node-lmd b\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(3767): error C2088: '&': illegal for union [ \build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(3768): error C2088: '>>': illegal for union [C:\dev\node-lmd b\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(3832): error C2088: '+': illegal for union [ \build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(3667): error C2440: 'initializing': cannot convert from 'int ' to 'LARGE_INTEGER' [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(3680): error C2440: 'initializing': cannot convert from 'int ' to 'LARGE_INTEGER' [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(4333): error C2440: '=': cannot convert from 'size_t' to 'LA RGE_INTEGER' [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(4334): error C2088: '+': illegal for union [ \build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(4335): error C2088: '-': illegal for union [ \build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(4336): error C2088: '+=': illegal for union [C:\dev\node-lmd b\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(4346): error C2440: '=': cannot convert from 'LARGE_INTEGER' to 'DWORD' [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(4369): error C2440: '=': cannot convert from 'LARGE_INTEGER' to 'DWORD' [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(5319): error C2440: '=': cannot convert from 'DWORD' to 'LAR GE_INTEGER' [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(5324): error C2440: '=': cannot convert from 'size_t' to 'LA RGE_INTEGER' [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(5325): error C2088: '<': illegal for union [ \build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(5327): error C2440: 'function': cannot convert from 'LARGE_I NTEGER' to 'LONG' [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(5327): warning C4024: 'SetFilePointer': different types for formal and actual parameter 2 [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(5328): error C2440: 'type cast': cannot convert from 'LARGE_ INTEGER' to 'DWORD' [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(5335): error C2088: '-': illegal for union [ \build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(5336): error C2088: '/': illegal for union [ \build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(5344): error C2440: 'function': cannot convert from 'LARGE_I NTEGER' to 'SIZE_T' [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] \dependencies\lmdb\libraries\liblmdb\mdb.c(5344): warning C4024: 'MapViewOfFileEx': different types for formal and actual parameter 5 [\build\node-lmdb.vcxproj] (and it all compiles fine when I use size_t > Do you still want the corresponding patch in 0.9? And can you please remind > me where the 0.9 patch is? Thanks. I could if you want, but you convinced me that using mdb.master and focusing 1.0 was the way to go, so that's what we have been using for the last few months (with my patches applied locally), and it has been working great on our servers. I don't need an 0.9 patch, but I could work on creating one if you think it is important. > And please don't send HTML emails, plaintext only. My apologies. Missed some settings, I despise that HTML cruft as well. Thanks, Kris -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

2 1

[Bug 8847] New LDAP URL syntax to support binding to specific IP address at client side
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 24 Apr '20

24 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8847 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|IN_PROGRESS |CONFIRMED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8783] LMDB on network share path is inconsistent after put data
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 24 Apr '20

24 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8783 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs