[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: bdb_index_read: failed (-30990)
- To: openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
- Subject: Re: bdb_index_read: failed (-30990)
- From: Ace Suares <ace@suares.nl>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:14:47 -0400
- Content-description: clearsigned data
- Content-disposition: inline
- In-reply-to: <200312311451.05800.ace@suares.nl>
- Organization: Ace Suares' Internet Consultancy
- References: <200312311451.05800.ace@suares.nl>
- User-agent: KMail/1.5.1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thanks Tony and Pierangelo.
db_recover didn't help at all, and I am linking against 4.2.52
After some excessive testing, it seems to go wrong every time this appears in
the logfiles:
<= bdb_equality_candidates: (qwidoStatus) index_param failed (18)
It's an intermittent problem, so I could log in once, twice not, 5 times okay,
2 times not, etc. Each time the above line appears, log in does not succeed.
qwidoStatus can only have two values 'enabled' and 'disabled' and all entries
have currently this attribute set to 'enabled'.
in slapd.conf:
backend bdb
database bdb
suffix "qwidoApp=qwido"
readonly off
directory /var/lib/qwido/
include /etc/qwido/config/root-data
index objectClass eq
index cn,uid pres,eq,approx,sub
cachesize 10000
qwidoStatus is not indexed (it seemed unneeded when having only two values).
after indexing it, I have done some more testing. These tests are still
inconclusive (as it is always difficult to gather enough data when problems
are intermittent), but up until now I didn't have any errors.
Some questions:
Do I need to index every attribute that is used in a filter ?
Is it really necessary to index a two-value attribute ?
Why is the problem intermittent ?
Is it a dbd or an openldap problem ?
Some uncertainty: I have recompiled openldap with the proper CPP and LD Flags,
as before I had not and had made a symlink to the libraries (which shouldn't
matter, should it?). After recompiling the problem stayed, but when I added
the qwidoStatus index and did a slapindex, it SEEMED that the indexing went
different than previous times. I recall vaguely that these slapindex messages
(with -d9):
=> key_change(ADD,31)
<= key_change 0
previously looked like
=> key_change(ADD,0)
<= key_change 0
(all of them). But I am not sure and so this whole problem might still be
resulting from strangely compiled openldap.... Sigh.
Cheers,
ace
> Hi,
>
> I am getting a *lot* of these errors:
>
> bdb_index_read: failed (-30990)
>
> Again, OL 2.1.25
>
> I googled and found an old, not very encouraging, thread:
> http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200209/msg00250.html
>
> What does this error mean and what to do about it ?
>
> Any hint ?
>
> On my SuSE box everything works FINE but on my Debian box not.
> I suspect maybe some problems with libs from Berkeley, would that be the
> right direction to look for ?
>
> _Ace
- --
Ace Suares' Internet Consultancy
NIEUW ADRES: Postbus 2599, 4800 CN Breda
telefoon: 06-244 33 608
fax en voicemail: 0848-707 705
website: http://www.suares.nl * http://www.qwikzite.nl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/9PA3y7boE8xtIjURAtl1AJ408tEDT7KgdJ5fEEVFp/GiNOqBvgCdFFSB
N+nGddkhwzbLIvvVEH9p07A=
=PiOj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----