[Freeipa-users] Accident upgrade 3.3 to 4.1

Thu Apr 9 05:51:03 UTC 2015

On 04/09/2015 05:59 AM, Alexander Frolushkin wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thierry bordaz [mailto:tbordaz at redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 6:36 PM
> To: Alexander Frolushkin (SIB)
> Cc: 'Ludwig Krispenz'; Martin Kosek; freeipa-users at 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?

Martin