Rich, I was able to get one box in this situation (not sure, how though). Do you want me do change some accesslog-levels or errorlog-levels? Now would be a good time to gather more information -Reinhard -----Original Message----- From: 389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Megginson Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 11:57 AM To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. Subject: Re: [389-users] Referral errors .... > No replies so far. Does this mean nobody has seen this issue before? I have not seen this. Any errors in the errors log? > -Reinhard > > > From: 389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Reinhard Nappert > Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 9:44 AM > To: 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [389-users] Referral errors .... > > > > Hi, > > I have the following setup: > > I have a 2 multimaster replication setup, where both masters also have > a number of shadowing agreements to other consumers. The data gets > replicated to all boxes and there are no issues. When I try to perform > an update on the slaves, it works on all, but one. Meaning, the server > sends back err=10, with the referral to one of the masters and the > client automatically follows the referrals. Unfortunately, it does not > works with one box: > > When there is an attempt to write to the db, the server returns an > error-code 1, with the following message: > javax.naming.NamingException: [LDAP: error code 1 - Mapping tree node > for o=base is set to return a referral, but no referral is configured > for it]; > > This can also be seen in the access file: > > > [ 26/Apr/2011:05:35:45 -0300] conn=3418 op=13256 ADD dn="o u = test > ,o= base " > [26/Apr/2011:05:35:45 -0300] conn=3418 op=13256 RESULT err=1 tag=105 > nentries=0 etime=0 > > When I have a look at the configuration, it looks exactly like the > others: dn: cn="o=Base",cn=mapping tree,cn=config objectClass: top > objectClass: extensibleObject objectClass: nsMappingTree cn: "o=Base" > nsslapd-state: referral on update nsslapd-backend: userRoot > modifiersName: cn=server,cn=plugins,cn=config modifyTimestamp: > 20100721202730Z nsslapd-referral: ldap://master-ld01:389/o=Base > nsslapd-referral : ldap://master-ld02:389/o=Base numSubordinates : 1 > dn: cn=replica,cn="o=Base",cn=mapping tree,cn=config > nsDS5ReplicaBindDN: cn=replication,cn=config nsDS5ReplicaRoot: o=Base > nsDS5Flags: 0 nsDS5ReplicaType: 2 nsds5ReplicaPurgeDelay: 43200 > objectClass: top objectClass: nsDS5Replica cn: replica modifiersName: > cn=Multimaster Replication Plugin,cn=plugins,cn=config > modifyTimestamp: 20110421052744Z nsDS5ReplicaId: 65535 nsState:: > //8AAAAAAADLv69NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALSoAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAA== > nsDS5ReplicaName: 59480b7e-94fb11df-9df8eeea-774385c0 > nsDS5ReplicaReferral: ldap://master-ld01:389/o=Base > nsDS5ReplicaReferral : ldap://master-ld02:389/o=Base I was wondering > if someone has seen this kind of issue. Everything looks fine to me > and I can not explain this behavior. Right now, I can not reproduce > this issue. I only see it in this one setup. Thanks, -Reinhard > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
