Passwordless sudo - is it possible?
by Todor Petkov
I have the following setup:
389-ds server and various machines are configured to retrieve user
information via SSSD.
There is an user in the ldap server, called userx. This user is used by
HP UCMDB to log in machines and perform discovery of installed packages,
Due to the nature of the HP product, it requires passwordless sudo.
As I read, there is no way for ldap user to be added in sudoers file
vith NOPASSWD option, is this correct?
7 years, 4 months
Re: [389-users] DS crashed /killed by OS
by Fong, Trevor
Apologies for resurrecting an old thread.
We're also experiencing something similar. We're currently running
I'm afraid I don't have login privileges in order to view the details of the bug you linked.
Could you please post details of how you defined an entry cache to include the whole db, and why this works?
FYI - moves are afoot re upgrading DS on a set of new servers, but in the meantime, we need to address this issue.
Thanks a lot,
On 2015-02-05, 1:57 AM, "389-users-bounces(a)lists.fedoraproject.org on behalf of German Parente" <389-users-bounces(a)lists.fedoraproject.org on behalf of gparente(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>we have had several customer cases showing this behavior. In one of these cases, we have confirmed it was due to memory fragmentation after cache-trashing.
>We have stopped seeing this behavior by defining an entry cache which includes the whole db (when possible, of course).
>Details can be found at:
>Apparent memory leak in ns-slapd; OOM-Killer invoked
>----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Boreham" <david_list(a)boreham.org>
>> To: 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 8:50:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [389-users] DS crashed /killed by OS
>> On 2/4/2015 11:20 AM, ghiureai wrote:
>> Out of memory: Kill process 2090 (ns-slapd) score 954 or sacrifice child
>> It wasn't clear to me from your post whether you already have a good
>> understanding of the OOM killer behavior in the kernel.
>> On the chance that you're not yet familiar with its ways, suggest reading,
>> for example this article :
>> I mention this because it may not be the DS that is the problem (not saying
>> that it absolutely is not, but it might not be).
>> The OMM killer picks a process that is using a large amount of memory, and
>> kills it in order to preserve system stability.
>> This does not necessarily imply that the process it kills is the process that
>> is causing the system to run out of memory.
>> You said that the DS "crashed", but in fact the kernel killed it -- not quite
>> the same thing!
>> It is also possible that the system has insufficient memory for the processes
>> it is running, DS cache size and so on.
>> Certainly it is worthwhile checking that the DS hasn't been inadvertently
>> configured to use more peak memory than the machine has available.
>> Bottom line : there are a few potential explanations, including but not
>> limited to a memory leak in the DS process.
>> Some analysis will be needed to identify the cause. As a precaution, if you
>> can -- configure more swap space on the box.
>> This will allow more runway before the kernel starts looking for processes to
>> kill, and hence more time to figure out what's using memory and why.
>> 389 users mailing list
>389 users mailing list
7 years, 4 months