Chris St. Pierre wrote:
I went ahead and re-inited pretty much all of my replication
agreements, and now I'm getting the error below on the other three
servers, but not on the one that originally had the problem. Do I
just need to keep re-initing agreements until I hit the magic
combination? Is
I went ahead and re-inited pretty much all of my replication
agreements, and now I'm getting the error below on the other three
servers, but not on the one that originally had the problem. Do I
just need to keep re-initing agreements until I hit the magic
combination? Is there a better solution?
Chris St. Pierre wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Richard Megginson wrote:
The consumer. The supplier thinks the consumer suffix is disabled. It might
be as simple a fix as restarting the consumer.
That changed the error message.
[03/Nov/2006:11:21:24 -0600] NSMMReplicationPlugin -
agmt=
Bliss, Aaron wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm sure like most shops out there, we have multiple domain
controllers in our 2003 ad environment; is it necessary to install the
pass sync service on each domain controller (as I understand ad's
multimaster environment to work, there is no guarantee which do
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Richard Megginson wrote:
> The consumer. The supplier thinks the consumer suffix is disabled. It might
> be as simple a fix as restarting the consumer.
That changed the error message.
[03/Nov/2006:11:21:24 -0600] NSMMReplicationPlugin -
agmt="cn="Replication to chico.nebrwe
Dan wrote:
I notice 2 differences. The BIND is using version 2 when trying to
start the admin server. That shouldn't matter.
The problem seems to be with the BIND'ing. When trying to start the
admin server, the RESULT to the BIND contains an empty dn. When run
manually, the dn is correct.
I
>
> I notice 2 differences. The BIND is using version 2 when trying to
> start the admin server. That shouldn't matter.
>
> The problem seems to be with the BIND'ing. When trying to start the
> admin server, the RESULT to the BIND contains an empty dn. When run
> manually, the dn is correct.
Any thoughts on what logs from FDS would be slurp-able, or if FDS
supports writing that kind of replication log?
Originally the two came from the same code. Netscape Directory Server 1.x
used a replication mechanism that was derived from slurpd (but the slurp
functionality was included in th
Chris St. Pierre wrote:
After the update from 1.0.2 to 1.0.3, I had some replication problems,
and it appears that one of my four servers was no longer properly
replicating to the others. I recreated the replication agreements and
reinitialized the replications, but now I'm getting some strange
After the update from 1.0.2 to 1.0.3, I had some replication problems,
and it appears that one of my four servers was no longer properly
replicating to the others. I recreated the replication agreements and
reinitialized the replications, but now I'm getting some strange
errors in the error logs o
"Chris St. Pierre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti:
I guess you did say, though, that the problem _only_ happens to
SSL-enabled machines, not that it _always_ happens to SSL-enabled
machines. Still, hope this helps you root out the problem.
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Richard Megginson wrote:
> It
Rich--
As I mentioned on IRC, I got about 90% of the way through the SSL
setup before my deadline hit and I had to go live without SSL fully
working. My machines are all listening on port 636, but don't do SSL
properly. As far as I can tell/remember, I provisioned the boxes
identically, so they
12 matches
Mail list logo
