[389-users] Fedora-DS 1.1 showing NSMMReplicationPlugin msgs, becomes unresponsive and dies

[Wolf Siedler]

Thanks for the fast reply, Rich!

> 1.1?  rpm -qi 389-ds-base
> 32-bit or 64-bit?

It's fedora-ds-base-1.1.3-2.fc6, 32-bit.
rpm -qi gives:
Name        : fedora-ds-base               Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version     : 1.1.3                             Vendor: (none)
Release     : 2.fc6                         Build Date: Thu 25 Sep 2008
09:58:45 AM HKT
Install Date: Mon 02 Feb 2009 05:41:56 PM HKT      Build Host: localhost
Group       : System Environment/Daemons    Source RPM:
fedora-ds-base-1.1.3-2.fc6.src.rpm
Size        : 4749479                          License: GPLv2 with
exceptions
Signature   : DSA/SHA1, Thu 25 Sep 2008 10:15:27 AM HKT, Key ID
0db66119a7b02652
URL         : http://directory.fedoraproject.org/
Summary     : Fedora Directory Server (base)

Finally, after several hours and retries, I had success with
/usr/lib/dirsrv/slapd-admin01/start-slapd -d 1.
slapd started again, listens, but still displays the "Bad paramter to an
ldap routine" error.

> Looks like you have some bogus ldap operation that it is attempting
> to
> replay.
>
> Use cl-dump to dump your changelog - look for a bogus operation.

Did so. But unfortunately I can't find any operation which looks unusual.

> I suppose you could use db2ldif to dump your database, then ldif2db
> to
> reinit.  Then you'll have to reinit all of your consumers.

As said, I have slapd running again.
Would you advise to re-initialize all consumers? Is there a chance that
this might stop the replaying?

> I've never seen this happen before.  If you can find a bogus
> operation
> in your changelog, we might be able to work backwards through the
> access
> log to find the source.

As said, unfortunately I didn't find anything suspicious upon first
reading. I will check again tomorrow and let you know.

Finally, let me say that I am well aware that 389-DS has moved on and
that an upgrade would be advisable.
It is just that current workload is very high, this is our only LDAP
master and I am seriously concerned that an upgrade might fail at the
worst possible time.

Again, thanks for the fast advice!

Regards,
Wolf