On 04/09/2015 07:59 AM, Alexander Frolushkin wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Kosek [mailto:mko...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 11:51 AM
To: Alexander Frolushkin (SIB); 'thierry bordaz'
Cc: 'Ludwig Krispenz'; freeipa-users@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Freeipa-users] Accident upgrade 3.3 to 4.1
On 04/09/2015 05:59 AM, Alexander Frolushkin wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: thierry bordaz [mailto:tbor...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 6:36 PM
To: Alexander Frolushkin (SIB)
Cc: 'Ludwig Krispenz'; Martin Kosek; freeipa-users@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Freeipa-users] Accident upgrade 3.3 to 4.1
On 04/08/2015 02:19 PM, Alexander Frolushkin wrote:
On one of accidently upgraded server I have following error in dirsrv logs:
[08/Apr/2015:13:24:12 +0300] connection - conn=1095 fd=131 Incoming BER Element
was too long, max allowable is 209715200 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize
attribute in cn=config to increase.
[08/Apr/2015:13:24:12 +0300] connection - conn=1094 fd=124 Incoming BER Element
was too long, max allowable is 209715200 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize
attribute in cn=config to increase.
[08/Apr/2015:13:24:12 +0300] connection - conn=1096 fd=124 Incoming BER Element
was too long, max allowable is 209715200 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize
attribute in cn=config to increase.
[08/Apr/2015:13:24:12 +0300] connection - conn=1097 fd=131 Incoming BER Element
was too long, max allowable is 209715200 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize
attribute in cn=config to increase.
This message is logged if the received message was too large. But here max size
was 200Mb.
I can not imagine a such large message.
Being log at the same second, it could be transient error. Have you seen others
messages like these ?
Yes, it still here.
[08/Apr/2015:14:55:01 +0300] connection - conn=1125 fd=130 Incoming BER Element
was too long, max allowable is 209715200 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize
attribute in cn=config to increase.
[08/Apr/2015:14:55:01 +0300] connection - conn=1124 fd=126 Incoming BER Element
was too long, max allowable is 209715200 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize
attribute in cn=config to increase.
[08/Apr/2015:14:55:01 +0300] connection - conn=1126 fd=126 Incoming BER Element
was too long, max allowable is 209715200 bytes. Change the nsslapd-maxbersize
attribute in cn=config to increase.
Those logs mean the connection (e.g. conn=1125) got closed.
Would you grep conn=1125 in access log ?
[08/Apr/2015:14:55:00 +0300] conn=1125 fd=130 slot=130 connection from
10.99.111.42 to 10.163.129.91
[08/Apr/2015:14:55:00 +0300] conn=1125 op=0 SRCH base="" scope=0
filter="(objectClass=*)" attrs="subschemaSubentry dsservicename namingContexts
defaultnamingcontext schemanamingcontext configuratio nnamingcontext rootdomainnamingcontext
supportedControl supportedLDAPVersion supportedldappolicies supportedSASLMechanisms dnshostname
ldapservicename servername supportedcapabilities"
[08/Apr/2015:14:55:00 +0300] conn=1125 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=101
nentries=1 etime=0
[08/Apr/2015:14:55:26 +0300] attrlist_replace - attr_replace (nsslapd-referral,
ldap://cnt-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389/o%3Dipaca) failed.
[08/Apr/2015:14:55:26 +0300] attrlist_replace - attr_replace (nsslapd-referral,
ldap://cnt-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389/o%3Dipaca) failed.
[08/Apr/2015:14:55:26 +0300] attrlist_replace - attr_replace (nsslapd-referral,
ldap://cnt-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389/o%3Dipaca) failed.
[08/Apr/2015:13:25:11 +0300] attrlist_replace - attr_replace (nsslapd-referral,
ldap://sib-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389/o%3Dipaca) failed.
[08/Apr/2015:13:25:11 +0300] attrlist_replace - attr_replace (nsslapd-referral,
ldap://sib-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389/o%3Dipaca) failed.
[08/Apr/2015:13:25:11 +0300] attrlist_replace - attr_replace (nsslapd-referral,
ldap://sib-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389/o%3Dipaca) failed.
[08/Apr/2015:13:25:15 +0300] attrlist_replace - attr_replace (nsslapd-referral,
ldap://vlg-rhidm02.unix.ad.com:389/o%3Dipaca) failed.
[08/Apr/2015:13:25:15 +0300] attrlist_replace - attr_replace (nsslapd-referral,
ldap://vlg-rhidm02.unix.ad.com:389/o%3Dipaca) failed.
Here it is likely trigger by RUV containing duplicated values (multiple replica
install ?). You may have to use cleanruv after the upgrade.
ipa-replica-manage list-ruv and ipa-replica-manager clean-ruv
Do You mean we need to upgrade all 3.3.3 IPA servers to 4.1 first? Or this can
be cleaned right now on remaining servers?
BTW:
# ipa-replica-manage list-ruv
Directory Manager password:
sib-rhidm03.unix.ad.com:389: 5
dv-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389: 17
sib-rhidm02.unix.ad.com:389: 3
sib-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389: 4
url-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389: 6
url-rhidm02.unix.ad.com:389: 7
....
nw-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389: 19
This message is harmless. It means that some values of nsds50ruv in the RUV
have identical referral.
This should not occur, but replication is smart enough to just log this warning
and continue working.
I would not recommend cleanup right now. Just clarification of the status.
Would you send all the ruv values returned by 'list-ruv' (here there is no
duplicate).
Here the full command output from the IPA 4.1 server:
# ipa-replica-manage list-ruv
Directory Manager password:
nw-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389: 19
dv-rhidm02.unix.ad.com:389: 18
vlg-rhidm03.unix.ad.com:389: 12
sib-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389: 4
dv-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389: 17
url-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389: 6
url-rhidm02.unix.ad.com:389: 7
cnt-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389: 14
sib-rhidm03.unix.ad.com:389: 5
vlg-rhidm02.unix.ad.com:389: 13
msk-rhidm-03.unix.ad.com:389: 10
msk-rhidm-01.unix.ad.com:389: 9
vlg-rhidm01.unix.ad.com:389: 8
cnt-rhidm02.unix.ad.com:389: 15
sib-rhidm02.unix.ad.com:389: 3
msk-rhidm-02.unix.ad.com:389: 11
I'm planning to upgrade all the remaining IPA 3.3.3 to IPA 4.1.
Ok, that should help.
Am I undersanding correctly, that upper messages does not mean something is
terribly wrong in IPA for now?
If you are asking about the attrlist_replace warnings, they should be benign,
caused by the uncleaned RUVs as Thierry indicated. Although the list above
looks OK, without duplicate RUVs.
Thierry, does this needs to be checked on every IPA server, or are RUVs also
replicated?
I'm worry about this:
"Incoming BER Element was too long, max allowable is 209715200 bytes. Change the
nsslapd-maxbersize attribute in cn=config to increase"
It appears in logs before the accident upgrade, and only on a part of our IPA
servers.
I understand. I wonder if the server received a malformed REQ, but it is
not transient as it occurs from time to time.
With ip address of the failing connection and periodicity, could you
determine which application opened those connections and look at their logs.
________________________________
Информация в этом сообщении предназначена исключительно для конкретных лиц,
которым она адресована. В сообщении может содержаться конфиденциальная
информация, которая не может быть раскрыта или использована кем-либо, кроме
адресатов. Если вы не адресат этого сообщения, то использование, переадресация,
копирование или распространение содержания сообщения или его части незаконно и
запрещено. Если Вы получили это сообщение ошибочно, пожалуйста, незамедлительно
сообщите отправителю об этом и удалите со всем содержимым само сообщение и
любые возможные его копии и приложения.
The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use
of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to
receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. The
contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If
you are not the intended recipient(s), any use, disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in
error please notify us immediately by responding to this email and then delete
the e-mail and all attachments and any copies thereof.
(c)20mf50
--
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-users mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users
Go to http://freeipa.org for more info on the project
