[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: Replication between 2.2 and 2.0
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: Replication between 2.2 and 2.0
- From: "Chris Robertson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:58:38 -0800
- Cc: <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
- Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
- Thread-index: AcWf4GsBjZcccFhiSJmPO7OaMsxLZgB8o0Xw
- Thread-topic: Replication between 2.2 and 2.0
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pierangelo Masarati [mailto:email@example.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:23 AM
>> To: Chris Robertson
>> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Subject: Re: Replication between 2.2 and 2.0
>> > Sorry in advance. This message is going to be a bit long.
>> > I have about 140 sites, spread across about 20 divisions,
>> underneath a
>> > single company. We are staring an upgrade of servers, but
>> said upgrade is
>> > disruptive and is going to take some time (possibly years). The old
>> > servers are running OpenLDAP 2.0 (2.0.23 to be exact), and
>> the new servers
>> > are (going to be) running 2.2(.13).
>> You should go at least with the latest stable; no reason, thou, to use
>> anything less than 2.2.28 (out this weekend, hopefully).
>> > Blithely unaware, I set up a new server as a test, and
>> tried to get it to
>> > replicate data from the central LDAP server (2.0.27). This
>> did not work.
>> > So I did a bit of research and found the schism between
>> OpenLDAP 2.0 and
>> > 2.2, with a hopeful note that replication from a 2.2 master
>> to a 2.0 slave
>> > should be possible
>> I set up a test using 2.2 as the master and 2.0 as the slave, with a
>> replica directive including
>> "attr!=structuralObjectClass,entryUUID,entryCSN". Replication failed, and
>> the reject file showed "ERROR: Constraint violation: creatorsName: no user
>> modification allowed".
> This message is likely telling you that the slave is not seeing the
> modification as occurring with the "updatedn" identity; that's the reason
> "creatorsName", "createTimestamp", "modifiersName", "modifyTimestamp" do
> not get allowed. They are at least supposed to be allowed, if not
> required, in OpenLDAP 1.X (and since UMich's 3.3 as far as I can tell).
>> Fair enough. I expanded the attr line to include
> You should check instead if the "replica" directive and the slave
> configuration match.
Ugh. That was it. Thanks.
> Pierangelo Masarati
> SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497