rejoin-slave command: what am i doing wrong?

[sangamc]

I have a master slave setup with 1 master and 20+ slaves with File & print sharing planned (10 have been deployed) I often get the following error message.

Unknown error at EBox::SambaLdapUser::_getAccountFlags Referral received

From searching the forums and opening a ticket it appears the solution is to run the following command

sudo /usr/share/zentyal-users/rejoin-slave

The problem is everytime i have run that command on the slave it destroys my samba domain. The sync issue is taken care of but the commputers can not long into the domain any more. When i try to map a drive using the domain admin or any domain user account i get errors that point to the domain does not exist.

I usually end up having to the re-install users & groups on the slave which of course means a new samba domain SID and extra work rejoining all the computers to the domain.

Is this supposed to be normal behaviour after using the rejoin-slave command or am i doing something wrong? As i get further into the deployment it becomes less and less practical to keep rejoining the slave to sync ldap accounts. If anyone has any ideas or the correct steps to follow please help.

[sangamc]

Any one have any additional insights to add to this topic. I've tried again with another site and once i started getting the smbldapuser bug i did a rejoin-slave. THe samba shares could no longer be mapped and computers could not join the domain. There must be a 'correct way' to do this. Or some tiny step that i am over looking.

Maybe the command was not designed to do what id like it todo. If thats the case i just need confirmation

[jsalamero]

I would check a couple of things to make sure master-slave is working properly

* NTP in all servers
* master can resolve slave names and reach their Zenyal admin port
* slaves can reach LDAP master port

And yes, probably rejoin-slave will break your setup.

[sangamc]

Thanks for the reply all the suggestions you have made i went over several times. I have accepted that this is the way things are for now and moved on. I may revisit this subject once the new version with samba 4 support comes out.

thanks again