[389-users] Windows Replication Agreement Help

John A. Sullivan III jsullivan at opensourcedevel.com
Mon Jul 19 08:15:05 UTC 2010


On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 15:40 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
> --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are setting up a new Windows 2K3 AD server and attempting to syncronise the users from our LDAP server version 8.1.0.
> >
> > Performing the full sync fails after about 30 seconds with a message in the error log:
> >
> > [14/Jul/2010:07:46:10 -0400] - add value "^V" to attribute type "ARecord" in entry "DC=@,DC=RootDNSServers,CN=MicrosoftDNS,CN=System,DC=domain,DC=com" failed: duplicate new value
> > [14/Jul/2010:07:46:10 -0400] - add value "null or non-ASCII" to attribute type "dnsproperty" in entry "DC=RootDNSServers,CN=MicrosoftDNS,CN=System,DC=domain,DC=com" failed: duplicate new value
> >
> > and none of the users or groups are sent to AD.  I am guessing it may be how our LDAP server schema is setup as we use something like:
> >
> > dc=domain,dc=com
> > |_ o=Internal
> > |___o=a0000
> > |____ou=Desktops
> > |_____uid=fred
> >
> > We have set the Windows subtree to be dc=domain,dc=com and the replication subtree to be dc=domain,dc=com with a DS subtree of o=Internal,dc=domain,dc=com.
> >
> > Our understanding was that within AD Users & Groups GUI we should have seen a similar schema created.
> >
> > Though for some reason the replication is traversing the whole of the internal AD tree.
> Because you set the AD subtree to be dc=domain,dc=com ?
> > Should we create a new Organisational Unit within AD called, for arguments sake, clients and set the Windows subtree to be ou=clients,dc=domain,dc=com so that it forces it to that branch ?
> >   
> I think that's the way it was designed.  Usually AD trees have a 
> CN=Users,DC=domain,DC=com where all of the user entries live, and 
> winsync is designed to work with that sort of structure.
<snip>
Hmm . . . we've rooted AD in dc=myad,dc=domain,dc=com and synchronized
at cn=users,dc=myad,dc=domain,dc=com but still have the exact same
problem :(




More information about the 389-users mailing list