Re: Solving Naming Conflicts

[Sergei Gerasenko <gerases@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

If I wanted to simulate a conflict the way it’s described in the RedHat documentation (14.23.1.1. Renaming an Entry with a Multi-Valued Naming Attribute) with a series of LDIF transformations, what would be the LDIFs? I installed and set up a 389 instance in a VM for this purpose.

I tried adding:

user1

user2

Then I tried to modrdn user2 to nsuniqueid=VALUE+user1, but got this error:

Rename Result: Server is unwilling to perform (53)

Additional info: new superior is identical to the entry dn

The exact LDIF for the ldapmodrdn command was:

uid=user1,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com

uid=nsuniqueid=82d86a81-c44811e7-b207809a-7d9aed98+user1

I’m just getting my feet wet with LDAP, so bear with me.

Thanks,

  Sergei

On Nov 7, 2017, at 4:44 PM, William Brown <wibrown@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 13:33 -0600, Sergei Gerasenko wrote:

Hi,

I was going through RedHat’s documentation on naming conflicts.
Here’s what it says at the beginning (https://access.redhat.com/docum
entation/en-
us/red_hat_directory_server/10/html/administration_guide/managing_rep
lication-solving_common_replication_conflicts
<https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-
us/red_hat_directory_server/10/html/administration_guide/managing_rep
lication-solving_common_replication_conflicts>):

14.23.1. Solving Naming Conflicts
When two entries are created with the same DN on different servers,
the automatic conflict resolution procedure during replication
renames the last entry created, including the entry's unique
identifier in the DN. Every directory entry includes a unique
identifier given by the operational attribute nsuniqueid. When a
naming conflict occurs, this unique ID is appended to the non-unique
DN.
 <>
What I don’t understand is how conflicts can happen at all if the
last one wins? 

The point is that if the last one wins, what do we do with the first?
We don't want to just delete it in case the order of operations was not
what the admin expected. So when you do:

         Master 1      Master 2

Time 0      ADD E

Time 1                    ADD E

We are going to keep M1 E, and we'll conflict on M2 E - this becomes
the conflict entry.

Also, they are talking about solutions to the conflicts and
specifically renaming the user that has nsuniqueid prepended. Does
that assume that the conflicting user is actually another person? Or
does it mean the conflicting record denotes the same user? If it’s
the same user, shouldn’t the conflicting record just be removed? 
Really confused about the nature of the problem and the suggested
solutions.
Thanks!

See above. It's about preserving the duplicate entry incase the
administrator wishes to revive them or see what happened. :)


Hope that helps, Ludwig might have more to say on this.

_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.o
rg

--
Sincerely,

William Brown
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Australia/Brisbane
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx