[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: syncrepl'd MOD deleted(?) entry



--On Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:38 PM -0500 Aaron Richton <richton@nbcs.rutgers.edu> wrote:

I'm currently running 2.3.12 across the board. I'd like to describe a
situation we've encounted recently, and ask if somebody can confirm it as
one of the 2.3.13 fixed issues. (I'd normally upgrade to 2.3.13 without
question, but ITS#4250 looks scary -- it might be time to make a homebrew,
but I was hoping to slide by until 2.3.14.)

Well 4250 only affects HDB, and I've already got a quick easy patch you can grab from my website that fixes it... :)

Our master had a LDIF submitted to it changing the value of one attribute:
Dec 12 09:03:06 master.rutgers.edu slapd[11736] [ID 249368 local4.debug]
conn=647307 op=2 MOD dn="uid=xxx,ou=People,dc=eden,dc=rutgers,dc=edu"

The entry syncrepl'd, apparently:
Dec 12 09:03:31 slave1.rutgers.edu slapd[15453]: [ID 260518 local4.debug]
syncrepl_entry: uid=xxx,ou=People,dc=eden,dc=rutgers,dc=edu Dec 12
09:05:36 slave2.rutgers.edu slapd[3515]: [ID 260518 local4.debug]
syncrepl_entry: uid=xxx,ou=People,dc=eden,dc=rutgers,dc=edu Dec 12
09:05:41 slave3.rutgers.edu slapd[3901]: [ID 260518 local4.debug]
syncrepl_entry: uid=xxx,ou=People,dc=eden,dc=rutgers,dc=edu Dec 12
09:06:13 slave5.rutgers.edu slapd[2581]: [ID 260518 local4.debug]
syncrepl_entry: uid=xxx,ou=People,dc=eden,dc=rutgers,dc=edu

Don't worry, slave4 has a failed HDD. So this is great.
What's not great is now the slaves don't have the entry anymore.

slave3$ slapcat -b "dc=eden,dc=rutgers,dc=edu" | grep \
"uid=xxx,ou=People,dc=eden,dc=rutgers,dc=edu" | wc -l
0

ldapsearch(1) against slave{1,2,5} confirms (less conclusively) that they
don't see this entry either. There's lots of stuff in the ITS that this
*could* be, but I can't tell with any certainty. Thoughts?

Well, syncrepl always propagates by doing a DEL then an ADD. If the entry is still on the master, doing another MOD *should* update it on the slave. I personally found 2.3.12 too unstable to put out into production (which is why I waited for 2.3.13). Of course, now I have 5 patches to 2.3.13, a couple of which (like the fix to #4250) I consider critical. ;) Which reminds me I need to get some of the newer patches up on my site...


--Quanah



--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITSS/Shared Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html