[Samba] [PATCH] Re: fsmo _role_seize _issue

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 12:13 +0200, Marc Muehlfeld wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
> 
> Am 09.05.2013 05:26, schrieb Andrew Bartlett:
> > The attached patch should fix this for you.  As you might notice, the
> > FSMO role transfer is successful, but we then error out.
> >
> > If I can get an ack from you that this solves your problem, and an ack
> > from a team member on the patch, I can get this fixed in master and
> > eventually into 4.0.6.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the patch. I applied it to 4.0.5. Now errors are shown any 
> more on transfers:
> 
> 
> 
> # samba-tool fsmo seize --role=rid
> Attempting transfer...
> FSMO transfer of 'rid' role successful
> FSMO seize was not required, as transfer of 'rid' role was successful
> 
> 
> # samba-tool fsmo seize --role=schema
> Attempting transfer...
> FSMO transfer of 'schema' role successful
> FSMO seize was not required, as transfer of 'schema' role was successful
> 
> 
> # samba-tool fsmo seize --role=naming
> Attempting transfer...
> FSMO transfer of 'naming' role successful
> FSMO seize was not required, as transfer of 'naming' role was successful
> 
> 
> # samba-tool fsmo seize --role=pdc
> Attempting transfer...
> FSMO transfer of 'pdc' role successful
> FSMO seize was not required, as transfer of 'pdc' role was successful
> 
> 
> # samba-tool fsmo seize --role=infrastructure
> Attempting transfer...
> FSMO transfer of 'infrastructure' role successful
> FSMO seize was not required, as transfer of 'infrastructure' role was 
> successful
> 
> 
> [root at Test_DC2 local]# samba-tool fsmo show
> InfrastructureMasterRole owner: CN=NTDS 
> Settings,CN=TEST_DC2,CN=Servers,CN=Default-First-Site-Name,CN=Sites,CN=Configuration,DC=muc,DC=medizinische-genetik,DC=de
> RidAllocationMasterRole owner: CN=NTDS 
> Settings,CN=TEST_DC2,CN=Servers,CN=Default-First-Site-Name,CN=Sites,CN=Configuration,DC=muc,DC=medizinische-genetik,DC=de
> PdcEmulationMasterRole owner: CN=NTDS 
> Settings,CN=TEST_DC2,CN=Servers,CN=Default-First-Site-Name,CN=Sites,CN=Configuration,DC=muc,DC=medizinische-genetik,DC=de
> DomainNamingMasterRole owner: CN=NTDS 
> Settings,CN=TEST_DC2,CN=Servers,CN=Default-First-Site-Name,CN=Sites,CN=Configuration,DC=muc,DC=medizinische-genetik,DC=de
> SchemaMasterRole owner: CN=NTDS 
> Settings,CN=TEST_DC2,CN=Servers,CN=Default-First-Site-Name,CN=Sites,CN=Configuration,DC=muc,DC=medizinische-genetik,DC=de
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a way I can validate, that really everything is 100% fine, so I 
> won't run into trouble after some days, when the old DC is away and 
> caches/whatever on windows renews, etc?
> 
> 
> What me confuses a bit on the 'fsmo seize' output was, that it first 
> says, 'transferd successfull' and in the next line 'FSMO seize was not 
> required, as transfer of 'infrastructure' role was successful'. What 
> does it mean?

I am happy to improve the wording, suggestions would be most
appreciated.  See python/samba/netcmd/fsmo.py

What is going on is that unless you --force it, we first try to ask the
other server to transfer the role to us, rather than seize it, as that
way it knows it lost the role, and can stop acting in parallel. 

If that succeeds, then we don't seize, which is what I was trying to
indicate.  It might be best just to drop the second message. 

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org