I am in the process of migrating from Sun's DS 5.2 to DS 389 and I have
compared the schemata. I see some differences and I wonder as to the best way
to handle them. In general is it better to change the 389 schema and then
always have to "fix" it with each new release or change my Sun clients somehow
(this seems to border on the philosophical)?
As an example, there is the Automount schema. On Sun's systems, they expect
something schema like this:
objectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.17 NAME 'automount' MUST ( automountKey $
automountInformation ) MAY description ...)
with the 389 schema looking like this:
objectclasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.17 NAME 'automount' MUST ( cn $
automountInformation ) MAY description ...)
In other words, the lookup key matched against the user's login for home
directories would be "automountKey" for Sun, and "cn" for 389.
I notice that my Linux clients work fine with a Sun DS so they seem to be
using "automountKey". (Or are they looking for either?).
I also see differences in the objectClass automountMap. Linux does not seem
to work with a Sun-style autmountMap.
If I just dump my Sun DS and load it into the 389 DS do I want to overwrite
the schema? Should I only load the non-conflicting entries? If the 389
schema is the "right" schema, will Linux stop working some day when they
conform? Is there a way to have both?
I have about 500 mixed Sun and Linux clients and I want to minimize the
reconfiguration on the day that I switch DS.
Nielsen's First Law of Computer Manuals:
People don't read documentation voluntarily.
--
389 users mailing list
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
07-19-2012, 05:38 PM
Rich Megginson
Keep the schema or change it?
On 07/19/2012 10:28 AM, Gary Algier wrote:
Hi,
I am in the process of migrating from Sun's DS 5.2 to DS 389 and I
have compared the schemata. I see some differences and I wonder as to
the best way to handle them. In general is it better to change the
389 schema and then always have to "fix" it with each new release or
change my Sun clients somehow (this seems to border on the
philosophical)?
As an example, there is the Automount schema. On Sun's systems, they
expect something schema like this:
objectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.17 NAME 'automount' MUST ( automountKey
$ automountInformation ) MAY description ...)
with the 389 schema looking like this:
objectclasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.17 NAME 'automount' MUST ( cn $
automountInformation ) MAY description ...)
In other words, the lookup key matched against the user's login for
home directories would be "automountKey" for Sun, and "cn" for 389.
Looks like Sun is using the RFC 2307 bis schema? Try this - remove the
default /etc/dirsrv/slapd-INSTANCE/schema/10rfc2307.ldif schema, and
instead copy in the /usr/share/dirsrv/ldif/10rfc2307bis.ldif
I notice that my Linux clients work fine with a Sun DS so they seem to
be using "automountKey". (Or are they looking for either?).
I also see differences in the objectClass automountMap. Linux does
not seem to work with a Sun-style autmountMap.
If I just dump my Sun DS and load it into the 389 DS do I want to
overwrite the schema? Should I only load the non-conflicting
entries? If the 389 schema is the "right" schema, will Linux stop
working some day when they conform? Is there a way to have both?
I have about 500 mixed Sun and Linux clients and I want to minimize
the reconfiguration on the day that I switch DS.
--
389 users mailing list
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
Keep the schema or change it?
