search for: lbdedit

...ust, 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

> Get rid of samba3 by demoting it again as you did last time, search > through sam.ldb for any mention of samba3 and samba4 (you will > probably have to use '--cross-ncs' with ldbsearch or lbdedit), then > remove them. > Now start again with a new DC, but this time, call it anything but > samba3 or samba4. Getting worse and worse .... I demoted samba3 and then also samba5, because samba5 reported successful replication with samba3, although samba3 was already demoted. So I thought...

...y 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 Developer, Samba Team http...

...ate schema=schema, req_level=req_level, req=req) Regards >> Get rid of samba3 by demoting it again as you did last time, search >> through sam.ldb for any mention of samba3 and samba4 (you will >> probably have to use '--cross-ncs' with ldbsearch or lbdedit), then >> remove them. >> Now start again with a new DC, but this time, call it anything but >> samba3 or samba4. > Getting worse and worse .... > I demoted samba3 and then also samba5, because samba5 reported successful replication > with samba3, although samba3 was alr...

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