Hi Andrew, Thanks for chiming in! On 10/14/2017 12:16 PM, Andrew Bartlett via samba wrote:> We are carefully following the reports here, but we do expect > replication should be much more stable with Samba 4.7.OK, that's interesting, because I actually wanted to upgrade ASAP, but (the few) 4.7-upgrade experiences that have been posted, are mostly about replication issues after having upgraded: See https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2017-October/thread.html Have people here generally upgraded to 4.7 already? Without major issues? (does that explain the lack of discussion on 4.7?) Or are people mostly waiting until a version 4.7.1 or .2 has been released? MJ
Andrew Bartlett
2017-Oct-14 18:33 UTC
[Samba] samba getting stuck, highwatermark replication issue?
On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 12:52 +0200, mj wrote:> Hi Andrew, > > Thanks for chiming in! > > On 10/14/2017 12:16 PM, Andrew Bartlett via samba wrote: > > We are carefully following the reports here, but we do expect > > replication should be much more stable with Samba 4.7. > > OK, that's interesting, because I actually wanted to upgrade ASAP, but > (the few) 4.7-upgrade experiences that have been posted, are mostly > about replication issues after having upgraded: > > See https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2017-October/thread.html > > Have people here generally upgraded to 4.7 already? Without major > issues? (does that explain the lack of discussion on 4.7?) > > Or are people mostly waiting until a version 4.7.1 or .2 has been released?I remain ever thankful to those who are willing to test new Samba versions, particularly Samba release candidates. In regards replication issues: - Newer Samba versions are becoming much more strict. While this may feel like a problem, it is about failing fast and in an obvious way, rather than allowing latent issues to remain un-detected. - dbcheck all the things - join a new DC rather than upgrading in-place is a safer option if you fear replication issues - You can test if Samba can join an existing domain by running: samba-tool drs replicate clone-dc-database I do realise that some of the reported issues happen after the upgrade. This is a worry, but I think represents latent DB issues. Finally, while taking care for user confidentiality (staff/student names, unicodePwd and supplimentalCredential values etc) we do need to see logs, typically less than the last 100 lines, for failures at a higher log level (keep turning it up to until meaningful info appears). We can't really guess very much from errors like this from another user in another thread: [2017/09/29 10:26:15.502219, 0] ../source4/dsdb/repl/drepl_out_helpers.c:959(dreplsrv_op_pull_source_ap ply_changes_trigger) Failed to commit objects: WERR_GEN_FAILURE/NT_STATUS_INVALID_NETWORK_RESPONSE Sorry, Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Catalyst IT http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
Dear Andrew, Your explanation makes a lot of sense, thank you. Alo for the clone-dc-database tip. Really no need to end your email with "Sorry", your presense and advises here are very much appreciated, and as I've said before: Thank you for your hard work on making samba what it is today! MJ> samba-tool drs replicate clone-dc-database > > I do realise that some of the reported issues happen after the upgrade. > This is a worry, but I think represents latent DB issues. > > Finally, while taking care for user confidentiality (staff/student > names, unicodePwd and supplimentalCredential values etc) we do need to > see logs, typically less than the last 100 lines, for failures at a > higher log level (keep turning it up to until meaningful info appears). > We can't really guess very much from errors like this from another > user in another thread: > > [2017/09/29 10:26:15.502219, 0] > ../source4/dsdb/repl/drepl_out_helpers.c:959(dreplsrv_op_pull_source_ap > ply_changes_trigger) > Failed to commit objects: > WERR_GEN_FAILURE/NT_STATUS_INVALID_NETWORK_RESPONSE > > Sorry, > > Andrew Bartlett >