2010/3/9 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:Please file a bug. Does this happen every time you attempt to delete a
> 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.
replication conflict entry? Does it happen with any other sort of
entry? This began happening with 1.2.5?
> <mailto:okelet@xxxxxxxxx>> escribió:
> <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$,ou=computers,o=XXXXXX,dc=XXXXXX,dc=XXXXXX"
>
> And no more... As you can see, the replica is busy since 8:16 (now
> is 16:51, in Spain). I am locked :S.
>
>
> El 8 de marzo de 2010 16:44, Juan Asensio Sánchez
>> <mailto:rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> At first sight, there are no messages neither in access or
> error logs, in supplier or consumers. Last modification
> operation in the busy replica/database is:
>
> [08/Mar/2010:08:16:01 +0100] conn=207283 op=4 DEL
> dn="nsuniqueid=f851c101-1dd111b2-a64db547-e4060000+uid=cabudenhos029p$,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:389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> 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
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users> <mailto:389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> --
> 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
