[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Antw: Re: Upgrading from 2.4.26 to 2.4.41: Stricter checks prevent startup?
>>> Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@symas.com> schrieb am 25.10.2018 um 16:50 in
Nachricht <209ED46A1CC190DCC021AC3D@[192.168.1.39]>:
> ‑‑On Thursday, October 25, 2018 9:59 AM +0200 Ulrich Windl
> <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni‑regensburg.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I wonder whether there is a summary of additional checks that may prevent
>> 2.4.41 from starting in a 2.4.26 MMR configuration (What I did was
>> upgrading SLES11 SP4 to SLES12 SP3). What I found out is:
>>
>> 1) olcServerID does not longer accept fifferent URIs mapping to the same
>> ID, like here (" slapd[3299]: olcServerID: value #1: <olcServerID>
>> multiple server ID URLs matched, only one is allowed 1"): olcServerID: 1
>> ldap://host.domain.org:389
>> olcServerID: 1 ldaps://host.domain.org:636
>> (The idea was that whatever URI is used to contact the server, the server
>> ID is the same) As we do not actually use ldaps for replication that
>> second line could be dropped easily
>
> It is clearly defined in the slapd‑config(5)/slapd.conf(5) man pages that
> the serverID parameter is REQUIRED to be unique. You have "1" twice.
Hi!
Yes, you are right, regarding the docs, but still I wonder, why all the
different URIs for a multi-homed LDAP-server should not use the same ID: If the
ID designates the database where the data came from, that would make sense.
Forcing different server IDs for every interface the server uses does not make
that much sense to me.
The manual says on ServerID: "Specify an integer ID from 0 to 4095 for this
server". I think when adding the optional URL, that should be included in the
uniqueness requirement, so that all "(ID, URI) pairs actually have to be
unique.
If one should use different IDs, depending on the URI, I wonder how to fulfill
the "each master must have a unique ID." (with "a unique ID" meaning "exactly
one unique ID") requirement.
>
> " Non‑zero IDs are required when using multimaster replication and each
> master must have a unique non‑zero ID."
>
> Note the words "must have" and "unique".
Yes, that's the specification, but does it really make sense?
Regards,
Ulrich