> On 11 Sep 2019, at 04:03, Morgan, Iain (ARC-TN)[InuTeq, LLC] 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/10/19, 04:44, "Ludwig Krispenz" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
>    On 09/10/2019 02:37 AM, William Brown wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10 Sep 2019, at 09:58, Morgan, Iain (ARC-TN)[InuTeq, LLC] 
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 9/8/19, 15:40, "William Brown" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 7 Sep 2019, at 08:33, Morgan, Iain (ARC-TN)[InuTeq, LLC] 
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello Marc,
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, it is 389-ds-base1.3.9.1-10.el7, but we are not using IPA and there 
>>>> are no memberOf plugin errors. The actual modrdn operations have error=0.
>>>    If we may, can we ask what the modrdn operations were, and to ask a 
>>> little about your tree layout so we could try to understand more about this?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sure, there's nothing unusual regarding the tree layout. There's a single 
>>> backend with ou=People,.... and ou=Groups,.... One thing that may be 
>>> relevant is that this is a stand-alone server -- replication has not been 
>>> configured.
>> Have you configured the replica id, replication agreement or changelog 
>> though? I want to follow up with our replication expert about why URP is 
>> getting involved here, when you say replication isn't configured.
>    if this is really a standalone consumer without replication configured, 
>    this is probably a consequence of splitting the multimaster(mmr) and the 
>    other plugin calls and the mmr plugin could be called and do nothing, 
>    just try :-(
>    so the messages is harmless although annoying and we should fix it.
> 
> 
> Yes, this is truly a stand-alone server. It's currently being used for 
> testing of locally written administrative scripts and no replication ID, 
> replication agreements, or changelog modifications have been configured. The 
> changes thus far have largely been limited to the password policy and TLS 
> configuration.
> 
> Your hypothesis seems reasonable. The next step in our testing is to create 
> another instance and test replication. Hopefully, these errors will disappear 
> once we get to that stage in our testing.

This seems like the case. I have opened an issue to investigate the 
false-errors you are seeing and why.

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/50593

Please let us know if once you enable replication you continue to see issues 
like this. I hope we have helped, and we are always happy to answer any 
questions you have. 

—
Sincerely,

William Brown

Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]

Reply via email to