On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:58:05PM -0500, Kevin Cackler wrote:
> For those of you guys who are experiencing this issue: I noticed tonight,
> after this happened yet again, that one of my files was owned by UID 1012 on
> node3. The problem is that that uid does not exist on node3. That uid DOES
> exist on node1, and was the affected user. So when csync2 copied this file
> from node1 to node3, it copied the UID as well, and since that UID doesn't
> exist on node3, the user on node3 did not have permission to access the
> In other words:
> "user" on node1 has a UID of 1012
> "user" on node3 has a UID of 1007
> "user" updated a file on node1. When that file was copied to node3, the UID
> of the owner and group was 1012 instead of 1007. This meant that "user"
> could not access the file on node3.
> I really hope this can be resolved soon, as it's causing a ton of grief for
csync2 replicates numerical uid/gid.
that has always been that way.
If you find someone to write a "by name" feature,
we are happy to take it.
when authenticating against /etc/passwd and friends,
you may want to put that into csync2 as well.
otherwise, you have "centralized" authentication anyways (ldap or
similar), and the id <-> name mapping is already covered.
Csync2 mailing list