search for: 1000547

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]