search for: dangurous

...39; on the sam.ldb is a must, to ensure the > index values are correctly re-calculated. I understand that most parts of sam.lbd are replicated between DCs, but from what I can read, some items are also non-replicated, so local-DC-only. Would I be ok to say: things that are replicated are more dangurous to edit using lbdedit than things that stay local to a specific DC? (as long as you run --reindex afterwards) MJ

...> index values are correctly re-calculated. > > I understand that most parts of sam.lbd are replicated between DCs, but > from what I can read, some items are also non-replicated, so local-DC-only. It is some attributes. > Would I be ok to say: things that are replicated are more dangurous to > edit using lbdedit than things that stay local to a specific DC? > (as long as you run --reindex afterwards) Yes, because the replPropertMetaData is not updated during a backend edit. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication...

Hi, dbcheck tells us we have two "dangling forward links" that I am trying to get rid of. On my test domain, I have simply done ldbedit -e nano -H ./CN=CONFIGURATION,DC=SAMBA,DC=COMPANY,DC=COM to remove them. While that seems to have worked nicely, dbcheck report zero errors now, it is something that I should never have done, or do in production, according to Andrew: "We