search for: olam

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