How to get DNS replication working properly?

[steve]

On 26/06/12 09:22, Andreas Oster wrote:
> Am 24.06.2012 14:49, schrieb Andrew Bartlett:
>> On Sun, 2012-06-24 at 14:43 +0200, Morten Kramer wrote:
>>> On 06/24/2012 09:35 AM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 17:32 +0200, Morten Kramer wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been trying to get DNS replication to work for a few days now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What I've done:
>>>>
>>>>> - Compile Samba (Beta1/Beta2/recent git pull) under Centos 6.2 x64
>>>>> Any help will be greatly appreciated!
>>>> Could you both please try
>>>>
>>>> git://git.samba.org/abartlet/samba.git fix-dns-replication
>>>>
>>>> If you start with that, for a new join, it should do the replication of
>>>> the DNS partitions.  Otherwise, follow the steps you took.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if this works, so I can get this in to master to
>>>> assist others.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Bartlett
>>>>
>>>
>>> I tried git clone git://git.samba.org/abartlet/samba.git fix-dns-replication
>>> But it looks like it's missing the netcmd/ subdirectory and e.g.
>>> domain.py you patched?
>>
>> You need to check out the fix-dns-replication branch, eg
>>
>> cd fix-dns-replication
>> git checkout abartlet/fix-dns-replication -b fix-dns-replication
>> make
>>
>> Andrew Bartlett
>>
> Hello Andrew,
>
> have these patches already found their way to the master branch ?
> Is there another way to start the replication other than demoting and
> rejoining the BDCs ?
>
> Thank you for your kind help
>
> best regards
>
> Andreas
>

Hi
Latest git from master 2 hours ago, I get this from a d3:

Replicated 0 objects (0 linked attributes) for 
DC=ForestDnsZones,DC=hh3,DC=site
Replicated 0 objects (0 linked attributes) for 
DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=hh3,DC=site
Replicated 0 objects (0 linked attributes) for DC=hh3,DC=site
Replicated 0 objects (0 linked attributes) for 
CN=Schema,CN=Configuration,DC=hh3,DC=site
Replicated 0 objects (0 linked attributes) for 
CN=Configuration,DC=hh3,DC=site

OK, there was nothing new but I _think_ it's done what it should. Does 
that log look correct or is it still missing something?

Cheers,
Steve