On Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 03:12 AM, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> Hi Ellie,
>
> I tried the patch and it did print the warnings on the replica.
> Unfortunately,
> it looked like it was looping on the master (sync_client) and the updates
> that
> could be made were not. I had to rollback to the dying ve
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 03:12 AM, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:30:03PM +1000, ellie timoney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016, at 02:14 PM, Kenneth Marshall via Info-cyrus wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 12:34:13PM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > > > 2.3.2 wasn't versio
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:30:03PM +1000, ellie timoney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016, at 02:14 PM, Kenneth Marshall via Info-cyrus wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 12:34:13PM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > > 2.3.2 wasn't version 10, it was version 7! It would have upgraded
> > > through 8, 9,
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016, at 02:14 PM, Kenneth Marshall via Info-cyrus wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 12:34:13PM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > 2.3.2 wasn't version 10, it was version 7! It would have upgraded through
> > 8, 9, 10 - and maybe you needed to reconstruct to get GUIDs for those
> > ve
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 12:34:13PM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> 2.3.2 wasn't version 10, it was version 7! It would have upgraded through 8,
> 9, 10 - and maybe you needed to reconstruct to get GUIDs for those versions -
> that sounds familiar.
>
> Bron.
>
Hi Bron,
Is there a way to identif
It's fiddly to tell from git history -- there's a right mess somewhere
during the 2.3 series where it looks like the branch got rebased, or
trashed and reimported, or something like that -- the earlier 2.3
release tags are on commits that are not ancestors of the later ones. I
keep tripping over t
2.3.2 wasn't version 10, it was version 7! It would have upgraded through 8,
9, 10 - and maybe you needed to reconstruct to get GUIDs for those versions -
that sounds familiar.
Bron.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016, at 12:22, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> Hi Bron and Ellie,
>
> I think that is what happened.
Hi Bron and Ellie,
I think that is what happened. Replication was working and the 'reconstruct -G'
was optional in terms of working, so some of the oldest mailboxes could be in
that state. I will check the versions and see if there are any older than 10,
but we started with version 2.3.2 so unless
Yeah, could be. In that case then the mailbox needs a reconstruct -G first :(
Version 10 mailboxes have a GUID space available, but I guess they could
wind up zero depending on how they got upgraded in the past.
Bron.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016, at 11:26, ellie timoney via Info-cyrus wrote:
> I've been
I've been under the impression that Ken's mailboxes were version 10,
which seems like they *should* have guids in them. If this is the
case, then it's interesting that the replica is coming up with zeroed
ones.
If his mailboxes are older than version 10, then it all makes sense,
nothing to see h
You can't sync a mailbox without GUID for messages. You need to upgrade the
mailboxes before you can use them for replication. The GUID is used for
replication - if we allowed zero GUIDs, then every message would deduplicate to
the same message!
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016, at 07:56, Kenneth Marshall
Thanks for passing these reports on!
Initial impression, I don't think this one is as straightforward as the
last one was, unfortunately. :(
Here's the chunk of code that produces those "guid mismatch" SYNCERRORs:
https://git.io/v6JWK
(wait a moment for it to load and it will jump to the lines I
Hello Bron and Cyrus Friends,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:41:15AM +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> Sorry, on holiday. Phone only.
>
> Looks like you might have corruption at one end, try reconstructing both
> ends. Also make sure you're not changing things on the replicas.
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014,
Dear Marcus,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:20:39PM +0100, Marcus Schopen wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 25.02.2014, 12:39 +0100 schrieb Willy Offermans:
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 01:17:30PM +0100, Willy Offermans wrote:
> > > Dear cyrus Friends,
> > >
> > > I'm testing the r
Sorry, on holiday. Phone only.
Looks like you might have corruption at one end, try reconstructing both ends.
Also make sure you're not changing things on the replicas.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 10:39 PM, Willy Offermans wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 01:17:30PM +0100, Wil
Dear Friends,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 01:17:30PM +0100, Willy Offermans wrote:
> Dear cyrus Friends,
>
> I'm testing the replication option of cyrus. I have rebooted the ``master''
> several times yesterday, but for reasons __not__ related to cyrus. Today I
> figured out that replication was not
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 07:37:50PM +1030, Stephen G Carr wrote:
> Dear Bron
>
> After about 3 hours the messages stopped.
Great.
> I notice a massive change in db_stat -c when comparing 2.3.16 to
> 2.4.5 the earlier version seemed to hold locks for ages for example
> the number of current would
Dear Bron
After about 3 hours the messages stopped.
I notice a massive change in db_stat -c when comparing 2.3.16 to 2.4.5
the earlier version seemed to hold locks for ages for example the number
of current would be about 40+ depending on concurrent connections now
it is Zero
Thanks to ALL
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 03:10:30PM +1030, Stephen Carr wrote:
> Dear All
>
> I disabled -v -l from my sync_client options so the logs would not blow
> out - one was 20MB in no time.
Cool :)
> Replication is working as I checked an email on being delivered to the
> master was on the replica in
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 01:59:33PM +1030, Stephen Carr wrote:
> Dear All
>
> I had a problem last week upgrading 2.3.16 to 2.4.4 due to a CRC bug.
>
> I have now updated from 2.3.16 to 2.4.5 with no major problems but I am
> getting a massive number of records of the type below - I will have to
Dear All
I disabled -v -l from my sync_client options so the logs would not blow
out - one was 20MB in no time.
Replication is working as I checked an email on being delivered to the
master was on the replica in a flash.
Regards
Stephen Carr
Stephen Carr wrote:
> Dear All
>
> I had a problem
21 matches
Mail list logo
