Mailing-List: contact users-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@directory.apache.org
Message-ID: <4C9C5C93.6080901@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:08:51 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Emmanuel_L=E9charny?= <elecharny@apache.org>
Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org
Organization: The Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "users@directory.apache.org" <users@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Error message: ERR_00004 The PDU buffer size is too small !
References: <6E5D4571AB4B8C438143A46C60730EA3EE282100@EXCNLDCM06.europe.unity>
 <4C9B2788.5030600@gmail.com>
 <6E5D4571AB4B8C438143A46C60730EA3EE32E88F@EXCNLDCM06.europe.unity>
 <4C9B58E5.9050709@apache.org>
 <6E5D4571AB4B8C438143A46C60730EA3EE32EB4E@EXCNLDCM06.europe.unity>
In-Reply-To: 
 <6E5D4571AB4B8C438143A46C60730EA3EE32EB4E@EXCNLDCM06.europe.unity>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

  On 9/24/10 9:35 AM, Wasscher, Ewald wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I will provide an LDIF for an entry that caused problems, but once ADS has been restarted the operation (view, add attributes) proceeds just fine for the same entry. Maybe I misunderstood, but I left out an LDIF as you suggested because, for a specific entry, the issue seems to disappear after restarting ADS (which I interpreted as "NOT always the same entry").
>
> Although I don't completely understand your remark considering the clients I can say three clients are used with problems occurring with the last two of those having issues. The clients are:
> - A (smart-)Card Management System (creating initial entries without certificates)
> - Some special software (which adds the issued certificates to the entries created by the CMS)
> - Apache Directory Studio (for management)
>
> What I find interesting is that the issue only appears when the certificate is or has been added to the entry which causes the entry to become a lot bigger. That's why I set the max PDU size to a (very) large value.

Hmmm, interesting !

That could also perfectly be a corner case, where the data is being 
modified while being read at the exact same time : as we first compute 
the PDU size using the entry, and then only feed the allocated byte[] 
with the entry, if another thread has modified the entry in the middle 
of those two operations, you may get this exception. It's possible 
because the entry is being cached, so any modification is applied 
directly to the entry.

However, I *think* we copy the entry from the cache before generating 
the PDU, AFAIR.

IMO, we need to produce more logs to know what's going on here.

The PDU size is just used as a way to limit the size of *incoming* 
requests, it has no impact on the outgoing responses.

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L�charny
www.iktek.com