Bug 1406351 - [RFE] Need a tool to compare entries on LDAP servers.
Summary: [RFE] Need a tool to compare entries on LDAP servers.
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: 389-ds-base
Version: 7.4
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: pre-dev-freeze
: 7.5
Assignee: mreynolds
QA Contact: Viktor Ashirov
Marc Muehlfeld
URL: http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/des...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-12-20 11:04 UTC by Têko Mihinto
Modified: 2020-09-13 21:59 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version: 389-ds-base-1.3.7.5-4.el7
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
New utility to compare two Directory Server instances This update adds the *ds-replcheck* utility to Directory Server. This utility compares the data of two servers in online mode, or two LDIF-formatted files in offline mode. As a result, you can now verify the replication consistency of two Directory Servers. For further details, see https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_directory_server/10/html/administration_guide/comparing_two_directory_server_databases.
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-04-10 14:15:15 UTC
Target Upstream Version:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Github 389ds 389-ds-base issues 2298 0 None None None 2020-09-13 21:59:22 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2018:0811 0 None None None 2018-04-10 14:16:19 UTC

Description Têko Mihinto 2016-12-20 11:04:27 UTC 
Description of problem:

In a replicated environment, there is a need to sometimes check if two databases
are fully synchronized:
    * same number of entries
    * for each entry, same number of attributes with same pairs keys:values

Such tool will help Support to quickly identify missing entries
and entries which have discrepancies ( example: different values for a given attribute )


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:
Comment 10 mreynolds 2017-05-01 22:41:30 UTC 
Upstream ticket:
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49239
Comment 11 mreynolds 2017-05-02 14:48:59 UTC 
Fixed upstream (1.3.7)

http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-diff-tool-design.html
Comment 14 mreynolds 2017-11-13 15:19:51 UTC 
Looks good
Comment 15 Simon Pichugin 2018-02-23 11:28:48 UTC 
[root@qeos-44 ds]# py.test -v dirsrvtests/tests/suites/ds_tools/replcheck_test.py
================== test session starts ==================
platform linux -- Python 3.6.3, pytest-3.4.1, py-1.5.2, pluggy-0.6.0 -- /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/bin/python3
cachedir: .pytest_cache
metadata: {'Python': '3.6.3', 'Platform': 'Linux-3.10.0-855.el7.x86_64-x86_64-with-redhat-7.5-Maipo', 'Packages': {'pytest': '3.4.1', 'py': '1.5.2', 'pluggy': '0.6.0'}, 'Plugins': {'metadata': '1.6.0', 'html': '1.16.1'}}
389-ds-base: 1.3.7.5-18.el7
nss: 3.34.0-4.el7
nspr: 4.17.0-1.el7
openldap: 2.4.44-13.el7
svrcore: 4.1.3-2.el7

rootdir: /mnt/tests/rhds/tests/upstream/ds, inifile:
plugins: metadata-1.6.0, html-1.16.1
collected 5 items

dirsrvtests/tests/suites/ds_tools/replcheck_test.py::test_check_ruv PASSED                 [ 20%]
dirsrvtests/tests/suites/ds_tools/replcheck_test.py::test_missing_entries PASSED           [ 40%]
dirsrvtests/tests/suites/ds_tools/replcheck_test.py::test_tombstones PASSED                [ 60%]
dirsrvtests/tests/suites/ds_tools/replcheck_test.py::test_conflict_entries PASSED          [ 80%]
dirsrvtests/tests/suites/ds_tools/replcheck_test.py::test_inconsistencies PASSED           [100%]

================== 5 passed in 184.81 seconds ==================

Marking as verified.
Comment 18 errata-xmlrpc 2018-04-10 14:15:15 UTC 
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://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2018:0811
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.