Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote: > One note, we have servers with version 1.1.3 and servers that have > been upgraded to version 1.2.5. Only the servers that have been > upgraded to 1.2.5 are showing the busy replica error, not those with > version 1.1.3. Hope this could help. Please file a bug. Does this happen every time you attempt to delete a replication conflict entry? Does it happen with any other sort of entry? This began happening with 1.2.5? > > Regards. > > > El 8 de marzo de 2010 16:50, Juan Asensio Sánchez <okelet@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:okelet@xxxxxxxxx>> escribió: > > These are the messages when enabling replication logs: > > [08/Mar/2010:16:02:51 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - conn=221525 > op=11 repl="o=XXXXX,dc=XXXXX,dc=XXXXX": Replica in use > locking_purl=conn=207283 id=3 > [08/Mar/2010:16:02:51 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - conn=221525 > op=11 replica="o=XXXXX,dc=XXXXX,dc=XXXXX": Unable to acquire > replica: error: replica busy locked by conn=207283 id=3 for > incremental update > [08/Mar/2010:16:02:51 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - conn=221525 > op=11 repl="o=XXXXX,dc=XXXXX,dc=XXXXX": > StartNSDS50ReplicationRequest: response=1 rc=0 > [08/Mar/2010:16:02:54 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - conn=221525 > op=13 repl="o=XXXXX,dc=XXXXX,dc=XXXXX": Begin incremental protocol > > These are all the messages in the access.log referring the > connection conn=207283 > > [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 fd=607 slot=607 SSL > connection from XXXXXX to XXXXXX > [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 SSL 256-bit AES > [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 op=0 BIND > dn="cn=Replication Manager,cn=config" method=128 version=3 > [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=97 > nentries=0 etime=0 dn="cn=replication manager,cn=config" > [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 op=1 SRCH base="" scope=0 > filter="(objectClass=*)" attrs="supportedControl supportedExtension" > [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 > nentries=1 etime=0 > [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 op=2 SRCH base="" scope=0 > filter="(objectClass=*)" attrs="supportedControl supportedExtension" > [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 op=2 RESULT err=0 tag=101 > nentries=1 etime=0 > [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 op=3 EXT > oid="2.16.840.1.113730.3.5.3" name="Netscape Replication Start > Session" > [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 op=3 RESULT err=0 tag=120 > nentries=0 etime=0 > [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 op=4 DEL > dn="nsuniqueid=f851c101-1dd111b2-a64db547-e4060000+uid=cabudenhos029p$,ou=computers,o=XXXXXX,dc=XXXXXX,dc=XXXXXX" > > And no more... As you can see, the replica is busy since 8:16 (now > is 16:51, in Spain). I am locked :S. > > > El 8 de marzo de 2010 16:44, Juan Asensio Sánchez > <okelet@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:okelet@xxxxxxxxx>> escribió: > > At first sight, there are no messages neither in access or > error logs, in supplier or consumers. Last modification > operation in the busy replica/database is: > > [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 op=4 DEL > dn="nsuniqueid=f851c101-1dd111b2-a64db547-e4060000+uid=cabudenhos029p$,ou=computers,o=XXXXXX,dc=XXXXXX,dc=XXX" > > which does not get any RESULT operation. I have just enabled > replication logs in the consumer to see any messages. As soon > i get them, i will post. > > Regards. > > > 2010/3/8 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx>> > > Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote: > > Hi all > > > > I have posted this on the chat, but i am not sure if it > is wirking > > fine in my computer. I am using 389ds 1.2.5, and i have > found some > > replication conflicts (nsds5replicaconflict=*). I have > deleted them > > manually, and now the databases in the other servers are > busy all the > > time, no matter if i restart the service in the source > or target > > servers (i must kill the target servers as they never > stop), when the > > replication agreement is launched again from the source > server, the > > replica is busy all the time. the last operation in the > access log of > > the replicated servers is the deletion of the object in > conflict, > > which never gets a result. > Any thing in the errors log of the suppliers or the consumers? > > > > any idea? > > > > As other times, thanks in advance for your help. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -- > > 389 users mailing list > > 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto: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
