Hello,

after digging very deep to find out, what the problem could be, I found interesting facts: 1) With our new client-DLL the master/slave replication problem seems to be solved. (our old DLL wrote each attribute separately, our new writes all in a row), but 2) So I switched back to Master/Master in hope that this works also, but I found out the following. - my client-DLL first create a new user entry and then it does a add with all attributes. - at the second master server I activated replication log and saw the following short message (the important part is surounded with ________): "do_syncrep2: rid=001 cookie=rid=001,sid=001,csn=20100914081312.596142Z#000000#00 1#000000 syncrepl_entry: rid=001 LDAP_RES_SEARCH_ENTRY(LDAP_SYNC_ADD) syncrepl_entry: rid=001 be_search (0) syncrepl_entry: rid=001 cn=10008,o=BAD_CLIENT3,ou=users,o=caesar slap_queue_csn: queing 09369668 20100914081312.596142Z#000000#001#000000 syncprov_matchops: skipping original sid 001 slap_graduate_commit_csn: removing 09377b10 20100914081312.596142Z#000000#001#00 0000 syncrepl_entry: rid=001 be_add cn=10008,o=BAD_CLIENT3,ou=users,o=caesar (0) slap_queue_csn: queing 09369668 20100914081312.596142Z#000000#001#000000 syncprov_matchops: skipping original sid 001 slap_graduate_commit_csn: removing 09377b10 20100914081312.596142Z#000000#001#00 0000 do_syncrep2: rid=001 cookie= syncrepl_entry: rid=001 LDAP_RES_SEARCH_ENTRY(LDAP_SYNC_MODIFY) __________________________________________________________________ dn_callback : new entry is older than ours cn=10008,o=BAD_CLIENT3,ou=users,o=cae sar ours 20100914081312.596142Z#000000#001#000000, new 20100914081312.100780Z#00 0000#001#000000 ___________________________________________________________________ syncrepl_entry: rid=001 be_search (0) syncrepl_entry: rid=001 cn=10008,o=BAD_CLIENT3,ou=users,o=caesar syncrepl_entry: rid=001 entry unchanged, ignored (cn=10008,o=BAD_CLIENT3,ou=user s,o=caesar)"

Is it a bug, or a result of a bad time synchronization (I only have windows standard time synchronization) But if it would be a time synchronization problem, in recent posts I asked when the time synchronization is important. I got the answer (if understood correctly) that the time synchronization only matters if concurrent write operations are made. So it should'nt be an issue here, since I made my write operations only at one master.

Best regards, Frank