On Tuesday, 21 February 2012 11:25:22 Marc Patermann wrote: > Howard, > > Howard Chu schrieb (31.01.2012 14:22 Uhr): > > Marc Patermann wrote: > >> Howard Chu schrieb (31.01.2012 12:08 Uhr): > >>> Marc Patermann wrote: > >>>> under some circumstances DEL don't get replicated to the consumers > >>>> (SyncRepl). I think this has to do with other changes at the some > >>>> moment. > >>> > >>> Already known, ITS#7052. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> So this is fixed in 2.6.27 (and later). > >> The master already is 2.4.28, the consumers are older. > >> So I have to update the consumers, right? > > > > Yes, the fix was consumer side. Also, the fix was incomplete, an > > additional fix will be in 2.4.29. > > Around begin of February I built an RPM based on pre 2.4.29 code from git. > With this installed on a consumer I sill get the same behavior, that DEL > do not get replicated, if one of the server was restarted and the entry > existed before the restart. This is very bad. > It seems the objects between consumer and provider loose "contact". > When the object changed (ADD or MOD) even DEL get replicated. > > I don't know what to do, because this destroys the consistency in our > ldap system. :( > In about more than 5 years in having openldap in production I have never > had such bad issues. > > There are reverted commits in git (ITS#7162). Should a build again with > current git status? >
As far as I have read in changelogs and ITS, anything from OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4 (including 2.4.29) before: commit 10c81e2a46c9b603ba1dfcf53422573d5068ba04 Author: Howard Chu <[email protected]> Date: Sun Feb 12 21:07:25 2012 -0800 ITS#7162 Revert "ITS#7052 ignore Adds with too old entryCSN" This reverts commit ba4366eae098c0e4950a78b1da8d79ffe8b34fee. The patch caused a regression (ITS#7162). will probably still be broken. Regards, Buchan
