Glad to hear it, I'm sure you are monitoring to make sure replication is
continuing to work too in this situation.
> On 19 Sep 2020, at 04:15, Fong, Trevor wrote:
>
> Thanks William.
> Just wanted to make an update to report that recovery via ldif2db was
> successful last night.
>
> Thanks,
Thanks William.
Just wanted to make an update to report that recovery via ldif2db was
successful last night.
Thanks,
Trev
On 2020-09-17, 7:37 PM, "William Brown" wrote:
> I don't want to do an db2ldif during production time since it will put
the db into read-only mode.
> The
-base/issue/49796
Thanks everyone!
Trev
From: Marc Sauton
Reply-To: "389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org"
<389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Date: Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM
To: "389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org" <389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
users@lists.fedoraproject.org"
<389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Date: Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM
To: "389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org" <389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Subject: [389-users] Re: Re-initialization Failure: Bulk Import Abandoned,
Thread Monitorin
Hi William,
Connectivity between the two machines is good.
The replication agreement from primary provider to secondary provider is OK too.
It was working this morning until I decided to re-initialize the secondary
provider to resolve some data inconsistencies.
Trev
On 2020-09-17, 5:05 PM,
Yes, I think it does. So in that case it would be good to check the replication
configurations and connectivity between the servers is good to eliminate that
as a possible cause.
> On 18 Sep 2020, at 10:02, Fong, Trevor wrote:
>
> Hi William,
>
> Thanks for your suggestion about db2ldif.
Hi William,
Thanks for your suggestion about db2ldif.
Doesn't db2ldif put the server into read-only mode? We would want to avoid
that as that is our primary provider.
Thanks,
Trev
On 2020-09-17, 4:52 PM, "William Brown" wrote:
Hi there,
> On 18 Sep 2020, at 09:09, Fong,
Hi there,
> On 18 Sep 2020, at 09:09, Fong, Trevor wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'm having an issue re-initializing our secondary muti-master replicated 389
> DS provider node via 389-Console > replication agreement > "Initialize
> Consumer".
> It eventually aborts the update with an error
