This is actually what I thought, too. It logs looked fine to me as well. Guess what, a restart of the LDAP server did get rid of the issue! For sure it would be nice to figure out how the system can get into this state! -Reinhard -----Original Message----- From: Rich Megginson [mailto:rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 6:28 PM To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. Cc: Reinhard Nappert Subject: Re: [389-users] Referral errors .... On 05/04/2011 03:59 PM, Reinhard Nappert wrote: > I actually tried even a bit more 1+2+4+65536=65543. > > I tried to add the object uid=stibbons,ou=admins,o=operator s,o=UMC. > > I tried to add it at (from access file): > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] conn=83 op=51 SRCH > base="uid=stibbons,ou=admins,o=o perators,o=UMC" scope=0 > filter="(objectClass=*)" attrs=ALL > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] conn=83 op=51 RESULT err=32 tag=101 > nentries=0 etim e=0 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] conn=83 op=52 ADD > dn="uid=stibbons,ou=admins,o=oper ators,o=UMC" > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] conn=83 op=52 RESULT err=1 tag=105 > nentries=0 etime =0 > > Here is what you see in errors: > > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - mapping tree release backend : userRoot > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - do_search > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - SRCH > base="uid=stibbons,ou=admins,o=operators,o=UMC" scope=0 deref=3 > sizelimit=0 timelimit=0 attrsonly=0 filter="(objectClass=*)" attrs=ALL > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => get_ldapmessage_controls > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= get_ldapmessage_controls no controls > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => slapi_control_present (looking for > 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.3) > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= slapi_control_present 0 (NO CONTROLS) > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - mtn_lock : lock count : 1 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - mapping tree selected backend : > userRoot > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - mtn_unlock : lock count : 0 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => slapi_reslimit_get_integer_limit() > conn=0xfd42c678, handle=2 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= slapi_reslimit_get_integer_limit() > returning NO VALUE > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => slapi_reslimit_get_integer_limit() > conn=0xfd42c678, handle=1 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= slapi_reslimit_get_integer_limit() > returning NO VALUE > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => compute_limits: sizelimit=2000, > timelimit=3600 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - Calling plugin 'ACL preoperation' #1 > type 403 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => slapi_control_present (looking for > 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.12) > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= slapi_control_present 0 (NO CONTROLS) > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => slapi_control_present (looking for > 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.18) > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= slapi_control_present 0 (NO CONTROLS) > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - Calling plugin 'Legacy replication > preoperation plugin' #3 type 403 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - Calling plugin 'Multimaster replication > preoperation plugin' #4 type 403 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => slapi_reslimit_get_integer_limit() > conn=0xfd42c678, handle=0 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= slapi_reslimit_get_integer_limit() > returning NO VALUE > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => find_entry_internal > (dn=uid=stibbons,ou=admins,o=operators,o=umc) lock 0 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => dn2entry "uid=stibbons,ou=admins,o=operators,o=umc" > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => index_read( "entrydn" = "uid=stibbons,ou=admins,o=operators,o=umc" ) > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - indextype: "eq" indexmask: 0x2 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= index_read 0 candidates > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= dn2entry 0 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => dn2ancestor "uid=stibbons,ou=admins,o=operators,o=umc" > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => dn2entry "ou=admins,o=operators,o=umc" > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= dn2entry f0cdb0 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= dn2ancestor f0cdb0 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= find_entry_internal_dn not found > (uid=stibbons,ou=admins,o=operators,o=umc) > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => send_ldap_result 32:ou=admins,o=operators,o=umc: > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= send_ldap_result > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - mapping tree release backend : userRoot > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - do_add > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - do_add: dn (uid=stibbons,ou=admins,o=operators,o=UMC) > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - slapi_entry_add_values: using an AVL > tree to detect duplicate values > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => get_ldapmessage_controls > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= get_ldapmessage_controls no controls > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - mtn_lock : lock count : 1 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - mtn_unlock : lock count : 0 > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] - => send_ldap_result 1::Mapping tree > node for o=umc is set to return a referral, but no referral is > configured for it > [04/May/2011:17:40:32 -0400] -<= send_ldap_result > [04/May/2011:17:40:33 -0400] - => slapi_reslimit_get_integer_limit() > conn=0xfd42c8a8, handle=3 > [04/May/2011:17:40:33 -0400] -<= slapi_reslimit_get_integer_limit() > returning NO VALUE > [04/May/2011:17:40:33 -0400] - => slapi_reslimit_get_integer_limit() > conn=0xfd42c790, handle=3 > [04/May/2011:17:40:33 -0400] -<= slapi_reslimit_get_integer_limit() > returning NO VALUE > [04/May/2011:17:40:33 -0400] - => slapi_reslimit_get_integer_limit() > conn=0xfd42c678, handle=3 > > > Let me know what you see..... I don't see anything unusual. Does this problem persist after a server restart? > Thanks, > -Reinhard > > -----Original Message----- > From: 389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Reinhard Nappert > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 5:32 PM > To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. > Subject: Re: [389-users] Referral errors .... > > 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 > -- > 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
