[389-users] Re: dsctl healthcheck bug - or bad at least a bad resolution

On 4/15/21 4:23 PM, Gary Waters wrote:
>
>> These entries look fine.  I'm assuming you are running this on a hub
>> or consumer, is that correct?  Does it work correctly on the supplier
>> replica?  I think the "nsslapd-state=referral on update" might be
>> tripping up the healthcheck.
>
> Yes I am using this as a hub. The same ldif I use to make the suffix I
> use to make the suppliers and consumers, and they work fine (and dsctl
> healthcheck says they are ok).  The setting of nsslapd-state was set
> by the dsconf command I sent before. I checked a production hub I have
> (which this one will eventually replace), and that is the correct
> setting.
>
> Perhaps this is an issue with dsctl's healthcheck then.

There is definitely a bug, I was just trying to narrow it down. I'll try
and look into this tomorrow...

>
> -Gary
>
>
--

389 Directory Server Development Team
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure