<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/26/2015 07:41 AM, Mitja Mihelič
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:54EF3092.7020005@arnes.si" type="cite">
      <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
      <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
        <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mitja Mihelič
ARNES, Tehnološki park 18, p.p. 7, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia
tel: +386 1 479 8877, fax: +386 1 479 88 78</pre>
        On 26. 02. 2015 15:18, Rich Megginson wrote:<br>
      </div>
      <blockquote cite="mid:54EF2B4C.2000402@redhat.com" type="cite">On
        02/26/2015 06:30 AM, Mitja Mihelič wrote: <br>
        <blockquote type="cite">Hi! <br>
          <br>
          We have a provider/consumer (master/slave) setup and we wish
          to create a database backup on the master. <br>
          Replica setting on the master are set to "Single Master". <br>
          <br>
          But when I run <br>
          .../db2bak $backup_path/$current_date <br>
          Backup fails an the following error is written in the errors
          log: <br>
          ERROR: Standalone db2bak is not supported when a multimaster
          replication enabled server is coexisting. <br>
          Please use db2bak.pl, instead. <br>
          <br>
          Since multimaster replication is not used, should I consider
          this a bug? <br>
          Or is it referring to the "Single Master" setup as a
          multimaster setup? <br>
        </blockquote>
        <br>
        Yes.  "Single Master" is a misleading term as it implies that
        there is some sort of special protocol or setting that prevents
        having multiple masters.  There is no such thing. <br>
        <br>
        What version of 389-ds-base?  rpm -q 389-ds-base. <br>
      </blockquote>
      We are using latest from CentOS repo
      389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-48.el6_6.x86_64.<br>
      There are no such problems with the old
      centos-ds-base-8.2.8-2.el5.centos.<br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Looks like it was changed for 9.0.  See
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/9.0/html/Administration_Guide/Populating_Directory_Databases-Backing_Up_and_Restoring_Data.html">https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/9.0/html/Administration_Guide/Populating_Directory_Databases-Backing_Up_and_Restoring_Data.html</a><br>
    <br>
    <blockquote cite="mid:54EF3092.7020005@arnes.si" type="cite"> <br>
      I've browsed the dse.ldif and found the entry defining the
      replication (certain entries omitted):<br>
      dn: cn=replica,cn=dc\3Dcompany\2Cdc\3Dcom,cn=mapping
      tree,cn=config<br>
      objectClass: nsDS5Replica<br>
      objectClass: top<br>
      nsDS5ReplicaRoot: dc=company,dc=com<br>
      nsDS5ReplicaType: 3<br>
      nsDS5Flags: 1<br>
      nsDS5ReplicaId: 47<br>
      nsds5ReplicaPurgeDelay: 604800<br>
      cn: replica<br>
      ...<br>
      <br>
      I have found the following in the RHDS docs:<br>
      "nsDS5ReplicaType: 3"  - 3 for both single and multi-master
      suppliers (read-write replicas)<br>
      <br>
      From this I would surmise that it does not matter if I choose the
      single- or multimaster, nsDS5ReplicaType is set to 3.</blockquote>
    <br>
    Correct.<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote cite="mid:54EF3092.7020005@arnes.si" type="cite">And
      db2bak will not work.<br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Correct.  You have to use db2bak.pl now.  See
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/9.0/html/Administration_Guide/Populating_Directory_Databases-Backing_Up_and_Restoring_Data.html">https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/9.0/html/Administration_Guide/Populating_Directory_Databases-Backing_Up_and_Restoring_Data.html</a><br>
    <br>
    <blockquote cite="mid:54EF3092.7020005@arnes.si" type="cite"> Would
      this be about right?<br>
      <br>
      Regards, Mitja<br>
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <blockquote cite="mid:54EF2B4C.2000402@redhat.com" type="cite"> <br>
        <blockquote type="cite"> <br>
          Regards, Mitja <br>
          <br>
        </blockquote>
        <br>
        -- <br>
        389 users mailing list <br>
        <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
          href="mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org">389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org</a>
        <br>
        <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
          href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users</a><br>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">--
389 users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org">389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users</a></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>