John A. Sullivan III wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 04:26 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 04:15 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 15:40 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
>>> --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
>>>> We are setting up a new Windows 2K3 AD server and attempting to
syncronise the users from our LDAP server version 8.1.0.
>>>> Performing the full sync fails after about 30 seconds with a message in
the error log:
>>>> [14/Jul/2010:07:46:10 -0400] - add value "^V" to attribute type
"ARecord" in entry
duplicate new value
>>>> [14/Jul/2010:07:46:10 -0400] - add value "null or non-ASCII" to
attribute type "dnsproperty" in entry
"DC=RootDNSServers,CN=MicrosoftDNS,CN=System,DC=domain,DC=com" failed: duplicate
>>>> and none of the users or groups are sent to AD. I am guessing it may be
how our LDAP server schema is setup as we use something like:
>>>> |_ o=Internal
>>>> We have set the Windows subtree to be dc=domain,dc=com and the
replication subtree to be dc=domain,dc=com with a DS subtree of
>>>> Our understanding was that within AD Users & Groups GUI we should
have seen a similar schema created.
>>>> Though for some reason the replication is traversing the whole of the
internal AD tree.
>>> Because you set the AD subtree to be dc=domain,dc=com ?
>>>> Should we create a new Organisational Unit within AD called, for
arguments sake, clients and set the Windows subtree to be ou=clients,dc=domain,dc=com so
that it forces it to that branch ?
>>> I think that's the way it was designed. Usually AD trees have a
>>> CN=Users,DC=domain,DC=com where all of the user entries live, and
>>> winsync is designed to work with that sort of structure.
>> Hmm . . . we've rooted AD in dc=myad,dc=domain,dc=com and synchronized
>> at cn=users,dc=myad,dc=domain,dc=com but still have the exact same
>> problem :(
> I also tried creating an ou in AD, e.g.,
> ou=LDAPUSers,dc=myad,dc=domain,dc=com in case it did not like building
> Organizations under CNs but that also failed - John
Hmm .. .more inconsistent behavior. I thought it might be a schema
violation to put an O under a CN or O.
No. Maybe some sort of naming violation,
not a schema violation, but I
don't think AD enforces those anyway, so it shouldn't matter.
I tried creating it under DC;
that did not work. I tried synching an OU instead of an O. That
appeared to work but only transferred one of five users. I wonder if it
is a 64 bit problem. The system where it is working is a 32 bit version
I doubt it is a 64-bit issue. Try turning on the replication log level
389 users mailing list