[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#5171) hdb txn_checkpoint failures
Aaron Richton wrote:
> With that said, "some admin specifically disturbed the log files around
> that time." Logs show that I was the only person in a position to do so
> (unless somebody broke in and covered their tracks; we'll ignore that
> theoretical possibility). On September 24, I reconfigured the slaves to
> use a different IP address to the master instead of the existing
> connection. The times are too coincidental to be unrelated:
> (slave4) reconfigured Sep 24 09:41 (first syslog complaint 09:43)
> (slave6) reconfigured Sep 24 09:39 (first syslog complaint 09:44)
> So...is there something that's cued off the (reverse?) name service
> entries for the master? Does the master IP hash in to a CSN somehow? And
> if this is indeed the case/root cause...well, quite honestly, I think that
> assuming a name service database will remain constant throughout a slapd
> instance is a fallacy. Furthermore, if this is indeed the case, it should
> be absolutely trivial for me to reproduce this (I can perform a DR on
> slave4/6, and reconfigure their network again).
No. The BDB transaction log files don't know (or care) anything about IP
addresses. Nothing at the slapd layer could have any direct effect on the BDB
transaction logs. How exactly did you reconfigure the servers, did you stop
them and restart them or did you use cn=config?
> With that in mind, I'll likely test this reproduction early next week. I
> can still get db_stat from all slaves (working and not) at this point if
> that's interesting. Comments?
Might as well get the db_stat -l output for a few of them to compare.
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/