help with net vampire error

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 12:15 -0400, Aaron Solochek wrote:
> On 10/16/2010 08:50 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 02:01 -0400, Aaron Solochek wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2010 05:12 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> >>> Hi Kamen,
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 00:05 +0300, Kamen Mazdrashki wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 23:47, Aaron Solochek <aarons-samba at aberrant.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/15/2010 04:32 PM, Kamen Mazdrashki wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 22:52, Aaron Solochek <aarons-samba at aberrant.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> It's a lot of output, so I've attached it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It seems you already have entries for your new BAR machine in db.
> >>>>>> Could you try "unvampire" (sort of) and then try again with 'net vampire'
> >>>>>> and big 'log level'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You can 'unvampire' quick&dirty with following mini-script:
> >>>>>> bin/ldbdel -H st/dc/private/sam.ldb
> >>>>>> "CN=LOCALVAMPIREDC,CN=Servers,CN=Default-First-Site-Name,CN=Sites,CN=Configuration,DC=foo,DC=com"
> >>>>>> -r
> >>>>>> bin/ldbdel -H st/dc/private/sam.ldb "CN=LOCALVAMPIREDC,OU=Domain
> >>>>>> Controllers,DC=foo,DC=com" -r
> >>>>>> bin/ldbdel -H st/dc/private/sam.ldb
> >>>>>> "CN=LOCALVAMPIREDC,CN=Computers,DC=foo,DC=com" -r
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There was also a problem on the primary DC where all the ldb stuff was looking
> >>>>> for modules in /usr/modules/ldb while they were installed via the debs in
> >>>>> /usr/lib/ldb
> >>>>>
> >>>> Hm, that's interesting.
> >>>> I don't know who the debs packagers is, but I am including Jelmer in the loop.
> >>>> (Jelmer, just for your reference if you are the one that made debs.
> >>>>  If not, then sorry for the noise :) )
> >>> That's correct, I'm the Samba 4 packager for Debian and Ubuntu. 
> >>>
> >>> Aaron, things are working fine here - what version of the packages were
> >>> you using?
> >>>
> >>
> >> 4.0.0~alpha14~bzr14327~ppa162+179~maverick1
> >>
> >> I had a build from source on that machine at one point in /usr/local/samba4, but
> >> I moved that out of the way before installing the debs.
> > Ah, so that's fairly recent. What version of ldb ? 
> > 
> 
> Sorry, I checked the wrong computer.  On the DC, where I ran that command, I was
> running
> samba4 4.0.0~alpha14~bzr13916~ppa160+170~maverick1 and
> libldb0 1:0.9.14~git20100928-1
> 
> I attempted to upgrade everything, which succeeded on everything but the samba4
> package.  It failed because I had a rogue ldb.so from some earlier non-deb based
> installation.  I killed that, but samba4 still failed to upgrade because of
> undefined symbols since there was now a version mismatch between those current
> ldb libraries and the older samba4 libraries I was trying to upgrade.  I
> manually unpacked the deb and installed the package, then tried to install the
> deb again (so my package database was sane) and got this:
> 
>  * Stopping Samba 4 daemon samba
>                                         [ OK ]
> Found 2 domain controllers, for the moment upgradeprovisionis not able to handle
> upgrade on domain with more than one DC, please demote the other(s) DC(s) before
> upgrading
> Sanity checks for the upgrade fails, checks messages and correct them before
> rerunning upgradeprovision
> A transaction is still active in ldb context [0x1709bb0] on
> /var/lib/samba/private/sam.ldb
> A transaction is still active in ldb context [0x2e665d0] on
> /var/lib/samba/private/idmap.ldb
> A transaction is still active in ldb context [0x1d0d9c0] on
> /var/lib/samba/private/secrets.ldb
> A transaction is still active in ldb context [0x2912c60] on
> /var/lib/samba/private/privilege.ldb
> dpkg: error processing
> /var/cache/apt/archives/samba4_4.0.0~alpha14~bzr14327~ppa162+179~maverick1_amd64.deb
> (--unpack):
:-( I guess we should remove the call to upgradeprovision in the Debian
packages until it can handle all situations (including this one). Or
perhaps we could get it to set a different exit code if it wasn't able
to perform an upgrade but there weren't any other errors.

> Are the active transaction messages expected for the 2 DC situation?  
No, this is a bug in upgradeprovision. It doesn't close transactions
properly on exceptions.

> Also, how do I demote and then re-promote the other DC in order to 
> complete this upgrade and get my system to a sane state?
I don't think it's possible do demote & promote the DC yet. But perhaps
others more familiar with this code can correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20101018/cbad29da/attachment.pgp>