Installation
Highlighted

Unable to distribute to peer - because peer has status = Duplicate license. Duplicate license hashes

Builder

Hi, i am having a problem after adding search-heads to our enterprise license pool as a slave.
Within the search-app i am getting the following error message;

Unable to distribute to peer named 'hostname' at uri 'ip-address' because peer has status = Duplicate license. Duplicate license hashes:
[randomlicensenshashscrabbledgarbagednumbersandletters] also present on the search head 'searchhead-name'.

If i check under $SPLUNK_HOME/etc/auth/distServerKeys/Search-head-name, on the search peers, i can see that the search-heads trusted.pem has been deployed correctly.

What to do? Do i need to generate my own certs for this function to work or is it something crazy going on with the licensing server / pool.

Please Advice!
Thanks!

🙂

Highlighted

Re: Unable to distribute to peer - because peer has status = Duplicate license. Duplicate license hashes

Builder

Seems that i fixed it ... will confirm and give answer here .... seems to be a stupid mistake with the license on one of the indexers 😉

0 Karma
Highlighted

Re: Unable to distribute to peer - because peer has status = Duplicate license. Duplicate license hashes

Communicator

Seems I got the same error and my upgrade from 4.2.3 to 4.3.4 wiped out the license information on the clients. (License server appears to be okay.) I also have search head pooling, but I do not use the deployement server.

I reconfigured the clients to correct the "https://:8089" configiguration in Manager > Licensing and all appears to be well.

0 Karma
Highlighted

Re: Unable to distribute to peer - because peer has status = Duplicate license. Duplicate license hashes

Builder

Well ... hmm i should have answered a long time ago.
I think in my case that this was due to having the license file deploy on several nodes ... but it could also have been due to us doing some crazy loadbalancing stuff on the front ... even for this requests ...

(Or the license file could have been deployoed on multiple nodes due to our testing with loadbalancing 😉 )

View solution in original post