Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 01/07/2010 12:52 AM, David O'Brien wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
>> Now the upgrade process can cope with converting ols ssd.ldb files into
>> multiple databases even if the new config file does not include a
>> "local" provider anymore.
>> Tested with a v1 db file and seem to work fine with and w/o a LOCAL
>> provider defined in the configuration.
> Hi Simo,
> Can you provide a bit more info about what's happening here? I guess the
> "old sssd.ldb files" are the ones used or produced by version 1 of the
> sssd.conf file? Why are multiple databases now produced?
> I have both IPA and LOCAL domains configured and enabled, and the
> following ldb files:
> # ll /var/lib/sss/db/
> total 656
> -rw-------. 1 root root 217088 2010-01-12 03:15 cache_IPA.ldb
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 135168 2010-01-11 04:12 config.ldb
> -rw-------. 1 root root 319488 2009-11-27 02:31 sssd.ldb
> thanks a lot
The reason for multiple DB files are so that each SSSD domain can have
its own cache. The sssd.ldb is the local user cache (for an
id_provider=local domain), other domains have cache_DOMAINNAME.ldb. One
advantage of this is that it is very easy to purge the cache for a
single domain, simply by deleting the corresponding cache_*.ldb file
(while the SSSD is stopped, of course)
We've actually been supporting multiple database files since SSSD 0.6.0,
if I remember correctly. So it's unlikely that there exists a deployment
that actually cares about this specific fix.
Info like this fits well into the "SSSD features" section of the doc,
and helps to explain why various aspects of SSSD exist or behave the way
they do. So, from a "fix" pov perhaps not very important, but from an
"SSSD supports this" pov, a bit more interesting.
Senior Technical Writer, Engineering Content Services
Red Hat Asia Pacific Pty Ltd
193 North Quay, Brisbane
+61 7 3514 8189
He who asks is a fool for five minutes, but he who does not ask remains
a fool forever."
~ Chinese proverb