Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "1000547".
Did you mean:
1000546
2020 Jul 20
1
Shares stopped working for groups
...indows built-in groups are somewhere over
> 1000500 e.g:
> [root at server ~]# id clearcenter
> uid=1049(clearcenter) gid=63000(allusers)
> groups=63000(allusers),1000546(guests),1000512(domain_admins),1000513(domain_users),1000514(domain_guests),1000544(administrators),1000545(users),1000547(power_users),1000548(account_operators),1000549(server_operators),1000550(print_operators),1000551(backup_operators),60006(executive),60007(staff),60008(visitors),60009(admin)
>
I have no idea why the groups are getting those numbers because you have
in smb.conf:
idmap config * : range = 20000...
2020 Jul 20
2
Shares stopped working for groups
On 20/07/2020 10:37, Nick Howitt via samba wrote:
> Bump, please.
I have reviewed all the posts in this thread and I 'think' I know what
is going on and also answers a question I asked.
You have in your smb.conf:
unix password sync = Yes
This possibly means that you have a group in /etc/group called allusers
with the ID of 63000
I would replace the line with:
ldap password sync
2020 Jul 20
0
Shares stopped working for groups
...I think od as the Windows built-in groups are somewhere over
1000500 e.g:
[root at server ~]# id clearcenter
uid=1049(clearcenter) gid=63000(allusers)
groups=63000(allusers),1000546(guests),1000512(domain_admins),1000513(domain_users),1000514(domain_guests),1000544(administrators),1000545(users),1000547(power_users),1000548(account_operators),1000549(server_operators),1000550(print_operators),1000551(backup_operators),60006(executive),60007(staff),60008(visitors),60009(admin)
>
> I would replace the line with:
>
> ldap password sync = yes
That is explicitly set to No in the included...
2008 Sep 24
2
[LLVMdev] mem2reg optimization
Hi Dave,
Did that patch of yours ever make it into trunk? I can't seem to find any
related checkin for PromoteMemoryToRegister.cpp. I've been doing some extra
profiling lately and the RewriteSingleStoreAlloca function alone is taking a
whopping 63% of execution time.
Thanks!
Nicolas
-----Original Message-----
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]