On 10/22/2014 10:58 AM, Shilen Patel wrote:
1.2.11.15 is a couple of years old?
Yes and no. 1.2.11.15 was the starting point for EL6. However, many,
many features and fixes have been backported from later versions into
1.2.11.15-47 in EL 6.6.
I had to upgrade to the latest in copr because of another issue that I
think was fixed in 1.2.11.30.
Has that issue been fixed in 1.2.11.15-47 in EL 6.6? I know a lot of
389 community members running on EL6 were using fedorapeople/copr repos
because they could not wait until those fixes/features were available in
EL 6.6. Now that EL 6.6 is out, I encourage you (and anyone else in
this situation) to stop using fedorapeople/copr builds and instead use
1.2.11.15-47 in EL 6.6.
If I’m misunderstanding version numbers in EL vs copr, please let me know.
See above.
But my main question is the second question regarding best practices
for detecting replication failures and I think that applies to all
versions?
nsds5replicaLastUpdateStatus is the documented way to get replication
status. The fact that this error is not being reported that way seems
like a bug.
You can also monitor the errors logs.
As for this particular problem, see
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47409
Thanks!
— Shilen
From: Rich Megginson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: "[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 12:14 PM
To: "[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [389-users] Error code 51 and replication errors
On 10/22/2014 10:10 AM, Shilen Patel wrote:
389-ds-base-1.2.11.32-1.el6.x86_64
I would strongly encourage you to use the version provided with EL
6.6, which is 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-47. It looks like you are
using a build from the old rmeggins repo or the newer copr repo.
These are really only for those users who needed critical fixes or
features not yet in the "supported" EL6.6 version. I don't know
if that will fix your problem, but it will make it a lot easier to
support.
Thanks!
— Shilen
From: Rich Megginson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: "[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 12:07 PM
To: "[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [389-users] Error code 51 and replication errors
On 10/22/2014 09:54 AM, Shilen Patel wrote:
Hi,
I’m running 1.2.11.32.
What is output of rpm -q 389-ds-base?
I have 6 replicas (two of which are read-only). I ran into
an issue where a DELETE operation failed on a server with
error code 51 (ldap busy).
[21/Oct/2014:23:44:44 -0400] conn=78160 op=39510 RESULT
err=51 tag=107 nentries=0 etime=3 csn=5447282c000300050000
The application retried the delete several times for a
couple of hours (while the server wasn’t getting any other
requests) and the result was always the same (err=51). Each
time that happened, the error log had the following:
[21/Oct/2014:23:44:44 -0400] - Retry count exceeded in delete
My first question is, what would cause a problem like this?
I simply restarted that directory and then the update
succeeded. However, when the update went to the other 5
servers, they failed in the same way and the same error was
logged in their log files. But the update wasn’t retried.
It was just skipped and future updates via replication
succeeded on those 5 servers.
My second question is, what’s the best way to monitor for
these types of replication errors? In this
case, nsds5replicaLastUpdateStatus did not indicate a
problem. If I had not been looking at the error file on
those 5 hosts, I’m wondering how I would have known that a
delete failed to replicate to them. If the answer is to
just have something monitoring the error log files, are
there specific search strings to look for to separate out
updates that have failed and won’t be retried from other
errors (e.g. temporary connection issues)? Just curious if
there is a best practice here.
Thanks!
— Shilen
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
