Cluster upgrade not working...

[bc2946088]

I went from 3.0.4.3 on my master no problem, but on the slave, it asks for mysql information then fails. I turned on debugging and ran the server.sh on the slave and here is the output.

root@ws02:/home/administrator# /usr/local/ispconfig/server/server.sh
23.05.2012-11:51 - DEBUG - Set Lock: /usr/local/ispconfig/server/temp/.ispconfig_lock
23.05.2012-11:51 - WARNING - Unable to connect to local server.
23.05.2012-11:51 - DEBUG - No Updated records found, starting only the core.
23.05.2012-11:51 - DEBUG - Remove Lock: /usr/local/ispconfig/server/temp/.ispconfig_lock
finished.

Is this failing to connect to mysql?

Brian

[bc2946088]

I'm guessing it's that, since here is the error message from the upgrade proccess..


Checking ISPConfig database .. OK
Unable to read server configuration from database.

[till]

Is this failing to connect to mysql?

Yes.

I'm guessing it's that, since here is the error message from the upgrade proccess..

Yes. The /usr/local/ispconfig/server/lib/config.inc.php file is missing or contains wrong data. You should restore it from the backup.

[bc2946088]

What's strange to me, is that the master config.inc.php is missing elements that I would think it should have. The dbmaster_type is pretty much empty, missing user, host, etc..

The current and backup of the slave config.inc.php has those elements filled in. Should I have chose yes to the reconfigure permissions on the database on the master? I chose no...

[bc2946088]

I think I know when and how I messed it up. Awhile back, the mysql master/slave wasnt working. I can't remember, but I likely restored some the master db to the slave.

My best bet, might be to uninstall ispconfig from the slave and reinstall it from scratch, setting everything up again.

[till]

What's strange to me, is that the master config.inc.php is missing elements that I would think it should have. The dbmaster_type is pretty much empty, missing user, host, etc..

On the master server the dbmaster fields must be empty, otherwise it would be a slave and not the master. The dbmaster fields are onyl for the slave server.

Should I have chose yes to the reconfigure permissions on the database on the master?

No, thats not nescessary for a update between 3.0.4.3 and 3.0.4.5 as the database permissions have not be changed.