Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "olam".
Did you mean:
olaf
2004 Jan 23
1
NFS re-export 64bit / 32bit locking issue?
..._LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=16384
SO_SNDBUF=16384
logon script = poi-basic.bat
logon path = \\%L\Profiles\%U
logon drive = H:
logon home = \\%L\%U\.profiles
domain logons = Yes
os level = 34
preferred master = Yes
domain master = Yes
wins support = Yes
ldap suffix = ou=accounts,ou=people,dc=pharm-olam,dc=com
ldap machine suffix =
ou=machines,ou=accounts,ou=people,dc=pharm-olam,dc=com
ldap user suffix = ou=users,ou=accounts,ou=people,dc=pharm-olam,dc=com
ldap group suffix =
ou=groups,ou=accounts,ou=people,dc=pharm-olam,dc=com
ldap idmap suffix = ou=accounts,ou=people,dc=pharm-olam,dc=com
lda...
2003 Dec 15
1
multiple ldap servers in bdc/pdc environment
...erver).
Regards,
Thomas
[global] passdb backend = ldapsam:ldap://192.168.1.60
ldapsam:ldap://192.168.1.215
ldapsam:ldap://192.168.1.98
ldap suffix = ou=accounts,ou=people,dc=pharm-olam,dc=com
ldap group suffix = ou=groups
ldap machine suffix = ou=machines
ldap user suffix = ou=users
ldap admin dn =
uid=smbldap,ou=accounts,ou=people,dc=pharm-olam...
2003 Oct 23
0
Win NT 4.0 clients give error C0000078 when login to Samba PDC
...n
logon path =
logon home =
domain logons = Yes
os level = 34
preferred master = Yes
domain master = Yes
wins support = Yes
ldap server = 192.168.1.60
ldap port = 389
ldap suffix = "ou=accounts, ou=people, dc=pharm-olam, dc=com"
ldap admin dn = "cn=Manager,dc=pharm-olam,dc=com"
ldap ssl = no
guest account = smbguest
[homes]
read only = No
create mask = 0600
directory mask = 0700
[netlogon]
path = /var/samba/netlogon
locking = No
[pub...
2004 Jan 28
0
configure incorrectly assumes my linux system is 64 bit capable
Hi all,
I've dug into a problem I've been having with Samba-3.0.0 (trying out
3.0.1 right now) on a linux system (2.4.18-3 kernel) with glibc 2.2.5
... when I run a ./configure (with or without --with-spinlocks) it tests
out my fcntl.h, and it fails the first fcntl.h test, the following one
(where it tests for a broken glibc 2.1), but then passes the 64 bit
fcntl test!? Now when it