On 02/26/2015 06:30 AM, Mitja Mihelič wrote: > Hi! > > We have a provider/consumer (master/slave) setup and we wish to > create a database backup on the master. > Replica setting on the master are set to "Single Master". > > But when I run > .../db2bak $backup_path/$current_date > Backup fails an the following error is written in the errors log: > ERROR: Standalone db2bak is not supported when a multimaster > replication enabled server is coexisting. > Please use db2bak.pl, instead. > > Since multimaster replication is not used, should I consider this a bug? > Or is it referring to the "Single Master" setup as a multimaster setup? Yes. "Single Master" is a misleading term as it implies that there is some sort of special protocol or setting that prevents having multiple masters. There is no such thing. What version of 389-ds-base? rpm -q 389-ds-base.

> > Regards, Mitja > -- 389 users mailing list 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

On 02/26/2015 07:41 AM, Mitja Mihelič wrote: > > -- > Mitja Mihelič > ARNES, Tehnološki park 18, p.p. 7, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia > tel: +386 1 479 8877, fax: +386 1 479 88 78 > On 26. 02. 2015 15:18, Rich Megginson wrote: >> On 02/26/2015 06:30 AM, Mitja Mihelič wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> We have a provider/consumer (master/slave) setup and we wish to >>> create a database backup on the master. >>> Replica setting on the master are set to "Single Master". >>> >>> But when I run >>> .../db2bak $backup_path/$current_date >>> Backup fails an the following error is written in the errors log: >>> ERROR: Standalone db2bak is not supported when a multimaster >>> replication enabled server is coexisting. >>> Please use db2bak.pl, instead. >>> >>> Since multimaster replication is not used, should I consider this a >>> bug? >>> Or is it referring to the "Single Master" setup as a multimaster >>> setup? >> >> Yes. "Single Master" is a misleading term as it implies that there >> is some sort of special protocol or setting that prevents having >> multiple masters. There is no such thing. >> >> What version of 389-ds-base? rpm -q 389-ds-base. > We are using latest from CentOS repo > 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-48.el6_6.x86_64. > There are no such problems with the old > centos-ds-base-8.2.8-2.el5.centos. Looks like it was changed for 9.0. See https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/9.... > > I've browsed the dse.ldif and found the entry defining the > replication (certain entries omitted): > dn: cn=replica,cn=dc\3Dcompany\2Cdc\3Dcom,cn=mapping tree,cn=config > objectClass: nsDS5Replica > objectClass: top > nsDS5ReplicaRoot: dc=company,dc=com > nsDS5ReplicaType: 3 > nsDS5Flags: 1 > nsDS5ReplicaId: 47 > nsds5ReplicaPurgeDelay: 604800 > cn: replica > ... > > I have found the following in the RHDS docs: > "nsDS5ReplicaType: 3" - 3 for both single and multi-master suppliers > (read-write replicas) > > From this I would surmise that it does not matter if I choose the > single- or multimaster, nsDS5ReplicaType is set to 3. Correct. > And db2bak will not work. Correct. You have to use db2bak.pl now. See https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/9.... > Would this be about right? > > Regards, Mitja >> >>> >>> Regards, Mitja >>> >> >> -- >> 389 users mailing list >> 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users > > > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users -- 389 users mailing list 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users