Okay so just messed up my update to the latest and to cap it off my hard drive bricked on my master while i was sorting out the issues. So my problem is that the master has now been reinstalled and is working just fine but I have slaves from the previous master install that hold mail, dns and database which are still live but not connected to the new master control panel Ive have run the update one of the slaves (manual wget because its already the latest) providing the new info for the master. the update completed. The problem is that the master is now showing the slave, just itself in the server list. Is there any way i can correct this or am i going to have to start over with a new slave?
I know it's possible, but for me, this would be a bit beyond my time I usually spend my time / answer ratio. Basically because I still don't know every corner in ISPC Maybe you can help yourself a bit by having some closer looks to the dbispconfig database and hey, as long as you make a backup of all dbispconfig dbs .... what could possibly go wrong
Thank you for your reply, I have already checked the database, there are records applied for the slaves in the mysql user table, 2 that i applied myself to allow remote access and three that the slave configuration added. three because its hosting mail & dns the third one is hard to explain but basically its linked to the datacentre for reverse dns. Update as i missed off the vital information!! However in the ispconfig database there is no reference at all to the slave, Now i come to recall i was not asked if it would join another, it just automatically did the rejig of the settings, it did ask if i want to reconfig the settings in the master database which is how the 3 extra users were created but nothing else. No reference to the server or its services or any of the records hosted on dns.
This is still not working, only the mysql user is created for the server. The server itself is never added to ispc (not showing in monitoring and cannot find it in the database So far as I've been able to tell nothing is updated on the would be slave server. meaning DNS is not updated and mailboxes are not created. The slave has mysql, bind & postfix - mysql is a backup, bind is the primary dns and postfix (currently the backup mail server but will be promoting it once its all working as expected)
An ispconfig update script run is not able to attach an existing slave to a new master as the slave record is added at install time only to the master. Beside that, all the data and records on the slave are missing on the master. What you try to do is possible manually, but it's not an easy task nor something that can be easily explained here in the forum. Basically, you will have to join all slave dbispconfig databases into the master dbispconfig database as each slave holds just a portion of the data that the master has or in other words, only the master holds all data and when the master is empty now, then you'll have to try to reimport all data by joining the data of the different slaves into the master database.
If you need help with that by remote login, then you should contact @florian030 here http://www.ispconfig.org/get-support/?type=ispconfig
Okay till thank you for the response. I will look into this myself for the time being if i feel its beyond my skill sets I will most certainly contact florian. Im off to create some mirrors for reinstallation if all this goes horribly wrong. Again, thank you for your reply.
Thank you for the direction folks, I decided instead that now is the time to just add two new servers to the configuration. I previously had two servers holding ns and mx with what I thought was backup databases (my setup ive no doubt was incorrect for the latter). Anyway I am now moving away from trying to manually add this. Im sure what I was wondering if it would be possible to have an update in the future to allow for this sort of recovery in the installer - run update ask to rejoin or move then if no master data is held find the appropriate on the 'slave' and add it. I suspect now though that this is an edge case that would not be of benefit to enough users to justify the work on it. Again thank you for your help.
