Re: WARNING: No dynamic config support for database ldbm

["Pierangelo Masarati" <ando@sys-net.it>]

> Pierangelo Masarati schrieb:
>
> (...)
>
>> that implements that missing feature, and likely it won't be accepted
>> because back-ldbm will disappear from the next minor version of
>> OpenLDAP.
>
> So no ldbm in 2.3.19?

2.4.

>>>>>I was going to use ldbm, and to make the binaries as small as
>>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Poor choice, if you start from scratch (poor choice in any case).
>>>
>>>Anyway, I built it once again, and now use "ldif" database.
>>>At least it works (and the binary is smaller, too).
>>
>>
>> back-ldif is not intended for general usage, because of SEVERE
>> performance
>> issues and likely missing features.
>
> So far it runs fine, and performance is not that important for me.
> My database ldif is 400-500 kB, so it's not that big, and there is not
> much traffic.

well, if you're fine with it then good for you.  Beware that there might
be missing features (like aliases, incomplete referral support and so). 
ACL support is incomplete, AFAIR.  If you don't need them, then fine.

>>>>see above.  It's harmless, as soon as you do not intend to run-time
>>>>modify
>>>>the configuration of slapd.
>>>
>>>How can it be "not harmless", as I'm not able to add any data to the db
>>>(or fetch any existing data)?
>>
>>
>> That warning __IS__ harmless, I'm telling you, because it has nothing to
>> with the fact you haven't been able to make it work.  That warning is
>> going to appear as soon as you add the "database ldbm" line to
>> slapd.conf,
>> so I don't see how you could use back-ldbm without noticing that
>> warning.
>
> OK, if you say so.
> I just made some tests with different debug levels, and on "normal PCs"
> I don't get that warning :)

?!? what do you mean by "normal PCs"?  That warning has been recently
introduced (I don't recall the version, it could be somewhere between
2.3.11 and 2.3.18) as a remainder that some of the backends and overlays
don't (yet) support back-config, so that people that use those components
get encouraged to adding that support.  It should appear irrespective of
the architecture.

> That's why I thought it has something to do with it.
>
>
>>>>As I'm not psychic I can only guess.  Sorry for asking silly questions;
>>>>did you load any data into slapd?
>>>
>>>First, I copied data from the other server (as I always do with new
>>>servers) - it didn't work.
>>>Then, I tried adding data with slapadd - still without success.
>>
>>
>> Do you mean slapadd failed or slapadd succeeded but subsequent
>> operations
>> failed?
>
> slapadd failed (compaining about dn2id.dbb).

OK, then I suggest you start from that; if slapadd fails, then I wouldn't
be surprised if slapd doesn't return any results.  Can you post the error
slapadd is reporting, possibly with some log (e.g. run it with -d 5 or
even -d -1 unless it gets too big)?

>
>
>> Does "cd tests ; make ldbm" lead to any errors?  If it doesn't,
>> then back-ldbm built just fine.  If there are any errors, please report
>> about them.
>
> It's cross compiling, I can't do any tests.

I'm not that familiar with cross-compiling, so there might be issues I'm
not aware of; anyway, I suggest you copy the tests to the target host and
try to run them.  It should be fine to copy the tests/ branch, the
clients/tools/, the servers/slapd/ and the servers/slurpd/ directories
with the binaries they contain (ldap* tools, slapd and slurpd
respectively).

p.



Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
Responsabile Open Solution
OpenLDAP Core Team

SysNet s.n.c.
Via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
http://www.sys-net.it
------------------------------------------
Office:   +39.02.23998309          
Mobile:   +39.333.4963172
Email:    pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it
------------------------------------------