Bug 1067090
| Summary: | Missing warning for invalid replica backoff configuration | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Milan Kubík <mkubik> |
| Component: | 389-ds-base | Assignee: | mreynolds |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Viktor Ashirov <vashirov> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 7.0 | CC: | mreynolds, nhosoi, nkinder, vashirov |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | 389-ds-base-1.3.3.1-1.el7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2015-03-05 09:33:53 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Milan Kubík
2014-02-19 16:24:19 UTC
Upstream ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47710 Milan, How exactly are you setting the configuration attributes? You should be using ldapmodify, and not directly editing the dse.ldif ldapmodify ... dn: cn=replica,cn=dc\3Dexample\2Cdc\3Dcom,cn=mapping tree,cn=config changetype: modify add: nsds5ReplicaBackoffMax nsds5ReplicaBackoffMax: 0 modifying entry "cn=replica,cn=dc\3Dexample\2Cdc\3Dcom,cn=mapping tree,cn=config" ldap_modify: Server is unwilling to perform (53) additional info: attribute nsds5ReplicaBackoffMax value (0) is invalid, must be a number greater than zero. Now, directly editing the dse.ldif file does not report a warning at server startup. I will work on this, although it's really an invalid way to set the configuration. Regards, Mark I think this bug was opened after bug1064986. If I recall correctly, Nathan suggested that I test the new feature by manually updating dse.ldif this way. Ah ok, I see - its no problem. Fixed upstream. $ rpm -qa | grep 389 389-ds-base-debuginfo-1.3.3.1-11.el7.x86_64 389-ds-base-libs-1.3.3.1-11.el7.x86_64 389-ds-base-1.3.3.1-11.el7.x86_64 In dse.ldif: [1] nsds5ReplicaBackoffMin > nsds5ReplicaBackoffMax nsds5ReplicaBackoffMax: 3 nsds5ReplicaBackoffMin: 10 After start in error log: [23/Jan/2015:15:37:48 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - Backoff minimum (10) can not be greater than the backoff maximum (3). Using default values: min (3) max (300) [2] Zero values: nsds5ReplicaBackoffMax: 0 nsds5ReplicaBackoffMin: 0 After start in error log: [23/Jan/2015:15:39:10 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - Invalid value for nsds5ReplicaBackoffMin: 0 Using default value (3) [23/Jan/2015:15:39:10 +0100] NSMMReplicationPlugin - Invalid value for nsds5ReplicaBackoffMax: 0 Using default value (300) Marking bug as VERIFIED. The only issue is that in case [1] when I update nsds5ReplicaBackoffMin and nsds5ReplicaBackoffMax dynamically via cn=config, it silently accepts new values, no warning message is logged. Should I open another bug for that? (In reply to Viktor Ashirov from comment #9) > The only issue is that in case [1] when I update nsds5ReplicaBackoffMin and > nsds5ReplicaBackoffMax dynamically via cn=config, it silently accepts new > values, no warning message is logged. Should I open another bug for that? No, we can use this same bug to address this... (In reply to mreynolds from comment #10) > (In reply to Viktor Ashirov from comment #9) > > The only issue is that in case [1] when I update nsds5ReplicaBackoffMin and > > nsds5ReplicaBackoffMax dynamically via cn=config, it silently accepts new > > values, no warning message is logged. Should I open another bug for that? > > No, we can use this same bug to address this... Is it severe enough to convince PM to give us a blocker+ flag at this very late moment? It does not look so to me... In such case, as Viktor suggested, we should set VERIFIED to this bug for RHEL-7.1 and open a new one for RHEL-7.2... (In reply to Noriko Hosoi from comment #11) > (In reply to mreynolds from comment #10) > > (In reply to Viktor Ashirov from comment #9) > > > The only issue is that in case [1] when I update nsds5ReplicaBackoffMin and > > > nsds5ReplicaBackoffMax dynamically via cn=config, it silently accepts new > > > values, no warning message is logged. Should I open another bug for that? > > > > No, we can use this same bug to address this... > > Is it severe enough to convince PM to give us a blocker+ flag at this very > late moment? It does not look so to me... No, of course not. Sorry I did not mean it should be a blocker. > > In such case, as Viktor suggested, we should set VERIFIED to this bug for > RHEL-7.1 and open a new one for RHEL-7.2... Agreed. Putting it back on QA so it can be marked verified... Marking this bug as VERIFIED. New bug for 7.2: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185774 Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0416.html |