[389-users] Replication issue

[Rich Megginson]

On 10/12/2011 02:08 PM, Reinhard Nappert wrote:
> Rich,
> I was thinking about the "Replica has a different generation ID than 
> the local data." error, because I have seen this before. If possible, 
> I want to avoid that I have to go though each box and re-initialize.
> So, you suggest I take let's say D (or A) and re-initialize B with D's 
> data. Then, I would have to re-initialize F from B, right?
Right.
> Let's go a bit further: If I had an agreement from A to F (and vice 
> versa), I would not even have to re-initialize F from B. Is this correct?
Assuming the AtoF agreement is not complaining about "unable to find 
CSN" and "data reload", then yes.
> -Reinhard
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Rich Megginson [mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:00 PM
> *To:* General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.
> *Cc:* Reinhard Nappert; Marc Sauton
> *Subject:* Re: [389-users] Replication issue
>
> On 10/11/2011 02:41 PM, Reinhard Nappert wrote:
>> How do I do this manually on server A?
>> The other question is, what kind of impact does it have when I 
>> re-iitialize server B? To be more precise, my replication environment 
>> is more complex than just server A and server B. In fact, I have a 
>> setup like the following:
>> srv C <--> srv A <--> srv B <--> srv D <--> srv C
>>                  /\             /\
>>                  |               |
>>                 \/              \/
>>               srv E          srv F
>> I don't want to end up to re-initialize all boxes in my environment.
> Assuming C and D are up to date and don't have any problems, 
> reinitializing B should affect only B and F.
>> Thanks,
>> -Reinhard
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Marc Sauton [mailto:msauton at redhat.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:36 PM
>> *To:* General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.
>> *Cc:* Reinhard Nappert
>> *Subject:* Re: [389-users] Replication issue
>>
>> On 10/11/2011 01:22 PM, Reinhard Nappert wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I encountered the following logs in the errors:
>>> [06/Oct/2011:10:11:57 +0000] NSMMReplicationPlugin - changelog program - agmt="cn=srvAtosrvB" (srvB:389): CSN 4e8d804a0000000c0000 not found, we aren't as up to date, or we purged
>>> [06/Oct/2011:10:11:57 +0000] NSMMReplicationPlugin - agmt="cn=srvAtosrvB" (srvB:389): Data required to update replica has been purged. The replica must be reinitialized.
>>> [06/Oct/2011:10:11:57 +0000] NSMMReplicationPlugin - agmt="cn=srvAtosrvB" (srvB:389): Incremental update failed and requires administrator action
>>>   
>>> Does anyone have  an idea, what could have caused this and more importantly, how to fix this?
>>>   
>>> Thanks
>>> -Reinhard
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 389 users mailing list
>>> 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>> On server A, read a changelog to manually run the changes on server B.
>> May be tune up nsds5ReplicaPurgeDelay if such errors somehow appears 
>> regularly.
>> Otherwise, like the errors log says, the change was purged/removed, 
>> and replica need a re-init.
>> M.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 389 users mailing list
>> 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20111012/b9baee38/attachment.html>