earlier in the log (sorry, i didn't look there) I see
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - check_and_set_import_cache: pagesize: 4096, pages: 256511,
procpages: 55220
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - WARNING: After allocating import cache 410416KB, the
available memory is 615628KB, which is less than the soft limit 1048576KB. You may want to
decrease the import cache size and rerun import.
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - Import allocates 410416KB import cache.
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] Upgrade DN Format - changelog: Start upgrade dn format.
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] Upgrade DN Format - Instance changelog in
/var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-cmu/db/changelog is up-to-date
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - check_and_set_import_cache: pagesize: 4096, pages: 256511,
procpages: 55220
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - WARNING: After allocating import cache 410416KB, the
available memory is 615628KB, which is less than the soft limit 1048576KB. You may want to
decrease the import cache size and rerun import.
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - Import allocates 410416KB import cache.
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] Upgrade DN Format - NetscapeRoot: Start upgrade dn format.
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] Upgrade DN Format - Instance NetscapeRoot in
/var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-cmu/db/NetscapeRoot is up-to-date
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - check_and_set_import_cache: pagesize: 4096, pages: 256511,
procpages: 55219[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - WARNING: After allocating import cache
410416KB, the available memory is 615628KB, which is less than the soft limit 1048576KB.
You may want to decrease the import cache size and rerun import.
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - Import allocates 410416KB import cache.
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] Upgrade DN Format - userRoot: Start upgrade dn format.
[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] Upgrade DN Format - Instance userRoot in
/var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-cmu/db/userRoot is up-to-date
and
find /var/lib/dirsrv -name DBVERSION -exec cat {} \;
bdb/4.3/libreplication-plugin
bdb/4.3/libback-ldbm/newidl/rdn-format-2/dn-4514
bdb/4.3/libback-ldbm/newidl/rdn-format-2/dn-4514
bdb/4.3/libback-ldbm/newidl/rdn-format-2/dn-4514
bdb/4.3/libback-ldbm/newidl/rdn-format-2/dn-4514
yes, i did upgrade from 1.2.9.9
/mrg
On Mar 27, 2012, at 21:05, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 03/27/2012 06:58 PM, Michael R. Gettes wrote:
> I have upgraded one of my masters to 1.2.10.3 and i see the following
>
> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - 389-Directory/1.2.10.3 B2012.065.2248 starting up
> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - libdb: DB handle previously used in transaction,
missing transaction handle
> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - libdb: DB handle previously used in transaction,
missing transaction handle
> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - libdb: DB handle previously used in transaction,
missing transaction handle
> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - libdb: DB handle previously used in transaction,
missing transaction handle
> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - libdb: DB handle previously used in transaction,
missing transaction handle
> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - libdb: DB handle previously used in transaction,
missing transaction handle
> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - slapd started. Listening on All Interfaces port 389
for LDAP requests
> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - Listening on All Interfaces port 636 for LDAPS
requests
> [27/Mar/2012:20:30:04 -0400] NSMMReplicationPlugin - changelog program -
cl5DBData2Entry: invalid data version
> [27/Mar/2012:20:30:04 -0400] NSMMReplicationPlugin - changelog program -
cl5DBData2Entry: invalid data version
>
> is this serious?
> I had to do an offline 'setup-ds-admin.pl -u' because i have everything as
SSL and the online update doesn't seem to handle this case very well (i offer this
info as i have no idea if it is relevant to the problem).
What should have happened is that during yum/rpm upgrade of the 389-ds-base package, it
should have upgraded the database to the latest version. Did you upgrade from 1.2.9.9?
find /var/lib/dirsrv -name DBVERSION -exec cat {} \;
before
[27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - 389-Directory/1.2.10.3 B2012.065.2248 starting up
you should have some messages about the database being upgraded
>
> the only error in the setup was
>
> [12/03/27:20:20:09] - [Setup] Warning Error: command 'getsebool
httpd_can_connect_ldap' failed - output [getsebool: SELinux is disabled] error []
If you are really running with SELinux disabled, then this is just telling you that it
couldn't perform some SELinux function because it is disabled, which is ok.
>
> 389-admin.x86_64 1.1.28-1.el5 installed
> 389-admin-console.noarch 1.1.8-1.el5 installed
> 389-admin-console-doc.noarch 1.1.8-1.el5 installed
> 389-adminutil.x86_64 1.1.15-1.el5 installed
> 389-console.noarch 1.1.7-3.el5 installed
> 389-ds.noarch 1.2.1-1.el5 installed
> 389-ds-base.x86_64 1.2.10.3-1.el5 installed
> 389-ds-base-libs.x86_64 1.2.10.3-1.el5 installed
> 389-ds-console.noarch 1.2.6-1.el5 installed
> 389-ds-console-doc.noarch 1.2.6-1.el5 installed
> 389-dsgw.x86_64 1.1.9-1.el5 installed
>
> advice appreciated.
>
> /mrg
>
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 10:03, Rich Megginson wrote:
>
>> On 03/27/2012 08:01 AM, Michael R. Gettes wrote:
>>> I just checked and only 1.2.10.3-1.el5 is in the epel-testing repo
>> 1.2.10.3 should be fine as long as you don't use compare operations on
virtual attributes.
>> I just pushed 1.2.10.4 to epel-testing - it should show up in the mirrors in a
couple of days.
>>> /mrg
>>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 9:50, Michael R. Gettes wrote:
>>>
>>>> I judge from your questions this is not a known problem.
>>>>
>>>> /mrg
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 9:17, Rich Megginson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/26/2012 08:25 PM, Michael R. Gettes wrote:
>>>>>> I am a little perplexed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am making a change to a groupOfNames object having some 16069
member attributes. I am deleting nearly 16000 members and then adding nearly 16000
members. CPU goes to 100% and never comes down. I have plenty of memory allocated
(700MB) to nss-slapd and I have made the adjustments to allow for large objects
(maxbersize). I end up having to kill -9 slapd. the annoying thing is some times it
works, some times it doesn't. I can't seem to find any common conditions of the
failures (or successes).
>>>>> Are you using replication? If so, do you see the high CPU usage on
the master or on the replica?
>>>>> Are you able to reproduce with 389-ds-base-1.2.10.4-1 in
epel-testing?
>>>>>> ds = 1.2.9.9
>>>>>> RHEL = 5.7
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users