[Samba] Replication Failure Issue

[David Minard]

G'day All,

	Will replay to all messages so far in this one to keep it all together.

On 21/03/18 22:52, lingpanda101 wrote:
> On 3/21/2018 7:32 AM, David Minard via samba wrote:
>> Thanks Carlos,
>>
>> The thing is, that I did not upgrade the version of Samba - that is 
>> the next step, so the ports used would not have changed. I only 
>> updated the OS.
>>
>>
>>> On 21/03/2018, at 10:04 PM, Carlos Alberto Panozzo Cunha 
>>> <carlos.hollow at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I have same problem after update for samba.
>>> I allow new ports in firewall.
>>>
>>> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba_AD_DC_Port_Usage
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 00:15 David Minard via samba 
>>> <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
>>> G'day All,
>>>
>>>          I have 4 DCs on Centos 7.1. Everything was working really 
>>> well for
>>> years, including replication.
>>>
>>>          Then I decided that the OS needed updating. Did the yum 
>>> update on one
>>> of the DCs, rebooted. That server is now running Centos 7.4. Samba
>>> seemed to start okay.
>>>
>>>          However, samba-tool drs showrepl gives this error on all 3 
>>> of the other
>>> DCs, and shows success on the updated DC.
>>>
>>> DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=samba4,DC=scem,DC=westernsydney,DC=edu,DC=au
>>>          Default-First-Site-Name\SAMBA4-10 via RPC
>>>                  DSA object GUID: 7fa7fc88-8d99-4217-b329-7e82324ec084
>>>
>>>                  Last attempt @ Wed Mar 21 12:58:13 2018 AEDT failed, 
>>> result 58
>>> (WERR_BAD_NET_RESP)
>>>
>>>                  10623 consecutive failure(s).
>>>                  Last success @ Thu Mar  8 14:34:14 2018 AEDT
>>>
>>>
>>>          Any thoughts on why this DC is now not replicating properly? 
>>> Any
>>> thoughts on how to remedy this?
>>>
>>>

>>
> You most likely will need to turn up the samba log level to get 
> additional information but you can start with running 'yum history list 
> all' and post results. This might help identify the changes that were 
> made to the OS. Are you using bind or the internal DNS?
> 
> 

I will turn up the logs and test it out.

I use Bind-9.9.4-51 (before update 9.9.4-18)

yum history shows 348 packages that got updated... Bind being one. Will 
sift through them.

My firewall is very lose. All ports are open for the subnets on which 
the samba servers need to talk. eg:

-A INPUT -s 172.20.0.0/16 -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -s 172.20.0.0/16 -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp -j ACCEPT

When I first set this up with 4.0.0-a2 (or whatever it was right at the 
beginning), I was not able to work out what ports exactly were needed, 
hence the lose rules. Now I see they are documented clearly on the Samba 
site, I will tighten them up, but not until the issue is resolved.

My samba is complied from source. I am currently running 4.3.2. It's 
been running flawlessly so no urgency to update, until the huge security 
hole was announced the other week. Now I've got to get it done, but want 
the ailing server going right first - or should I just do the updates 
and then worry about the ailing server?

Smb.conf:

# Global parameters
[global]
	workgroup = SCEM_AD
	realm = samba4.scem.westernsydney.edu.au
	netbios name = SAMBA4-10
	server role = active directory domain controller
	server services = s3fs, rpc, nbt, wrepl, ldap, cldap, kdc, drepl, 
winbindd, ntp_signd, kcc, dnsupdate

#        log level = 1 auth:2
# logs split per machine
         log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
         # max 50KB per log file, then rotate
         max log size = 0

[netlogon]
	path = 
/usr/local/samba/var/locks/sysvol/samba4.scem.westernsydney.edu.au/scripts
	read only = No

[sysvol]
	path = /usr/local/samba/var/locks/sysvol
	read only = No


It is the out of the box config from the original provision.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.