What this join-rule error means ?
-
Thursday, February 07, 2013 8:28 AM
I got below error when importing& synching some GAL_MA.
What this join-rule error actually means ?
Microsoft.MetadirectoryServices.UnexpectedDataException: An authoritative Microsoft.MetadirectoryServices.Impl.CSEntryImpl-object in _GAL_MA with DN CS _GAL_MA user XXXX attempts to join when it should be projected. There is another authoritative object representing the same entity in the metaverse: CS _GAL_MA user YYYY. This object will not be propagated to any other forests until this conflict is resolved by removing or modifying one of the objects so that they no longer collide. Also Microsoft Identity Integration Server will try to maintain these objects if it has the permissions and may rewrite the attributes unless appropriate action is taken.
All Replies
-
Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:34 AM
Have you seen this join-resolution errors during GalSync
Cause
A common cause of this error is that two or more users in the data source have identical smtp addresses in their list of email addresses as stored in the proxyAddresses attribute.
In the example shown in the Result section, note that the error displays two users - smtp dupe1 and smtp dupe2.
The error detail, "CS hol galsync" informs us that the offending objects are in the Connector Space (CS) of the "hol galsync" Management Agent.Resolution
To correct this error, ensure that duplicate addresses do not exist on the proxyAddresses attribute for objects that are being synchronized. -
Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:42 PM
Thank you.
Is it impossible to join user to person obejct which already linked to other CS user object by project-rule ?
-
Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:54 PM
Hi
it is very much possible to join any CS person object to any MV person object, GIVEN THAT there is a realation between them and that relation in UNIQUE.
An MV Object will always have one CS object with projection-rule, the rest should be either join-rules or provisioning-rules.
Regards Furqan Asghar
-
Friday, February 08, 2013 5:38 AM
Thank you.
An MV Object will always have one CS object with projection-rule, the rest should be either join-rules or provisioning-rules.
It mean it is impossible to join user to existing person obejct which already linked to the other CS user object by project-rule ?
-
Saturday, February 09, 2013 8:38 AM
I am not really sure what you are trying to accomplish here, BUT
In easy words, an MVObject can only be connected to one CSObject of any given Connected Datasource.
This means that if you have an AD Connector, the MVObject of that person will only connect to ONE AD CSObject. Now it is possible that the same MVObject is connected to another CSObject of another Connected Datasource, for example HR.
I would also suggest detailed Microsoft Technical Documentation on MIIS from the below link. It explains everything you need to know.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8707
Regards Furqan Asghar
- Edited by Furqan Asghar Saturday, February 09, 2013 8:41 AM
-
Saturday, February 09, 2013 4:48 PM
Furqan,
Actually there is a way to have mulitple CS objects from one MA be linked to same MV object but you can't use any direct flows and this not considered a standard configuration for the sync engine.
But for the GALSYNC solution in particular, this error means there is already a mailbox-enabled user or authoritative contact that has projected to the Metaverse and that there is another object that shares a similar mail-related value that is attempting to join to same MV object. This often happens because two different objects have the same SMPT address, possibly as a secondary value.
For an example, say you are performing a 3-way GALSYNC, 3 AD orgs with their own Exchange. If there is a user called Joe Smith that has an account in 2 of the AD/Exchange orgs and they share at least one SMTP value, then this error would occur. To fix, either take the second object out of scope or fix source SMPT addresses.
- Marked As Answer by Markus VilcinskasMicrosoft Employee, Owner Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:52 PM
-
Sunday, February 10, 2013 8:41 AM
Hi Glenn
Thanks for your input on this.
Regards Furqan Asghar

