aggregate members dissapear in the slave of an HA cluster

[Agent_1994]

Hello,

 It's me again with another strange problem. This happened on a customer's site. Any help will be appreciated.

 Devices

[ul]

2 x FG1000C with firmware version 5.6.0.

2 x Cisco Catalyst Switches in a stacked setup. From our point of view it acts as a single device.

1 x Flex with 2 EN2092 Switches. They're not stacked nor connected among them.[/ul]

Setup

[ul]

Production environment (i can't just crank the config until it works :) ).

2 VDOMS: Transparent (transparent mode) and root (nat)

2 Aggregates: LA-Catalyst and LA-Flex, these are configured at a global level. All using different LAG groups.

Several VLAN subinterfaces using these aggregates. All asigned to their corresponding VDOM.

Ports port1 and port2 will be used for HA.

LA-Catalyst uses ports: port6, port8 and port10.

LA-Flex uses ports: port18, port20 and port 22.[/ul]

Notes

[ul]

The configuration works either on node A or node B.[/ul]

Objetive

Both FG1000C should work in an active-passive cluster with link monitoring enabled on "LA-Catalyst" and "LA-Flex". At least in the active node these interfaces must be aggregates to their respective switches.

The problem

I configured the HA cluster and noticed that the passive node had a out of sync configuration... forever.

I dug and found that in the passive node was only one interface member per aggreate: port6 on LA-Catalyst and port18 on LA-Flex. The missing interfaces were nowhere to be found in the GUI: they were not listed as members of the aggregates, nor available for use. This was exactly the same in the CLI, though i "saw" then with show system interface portX.

Then, on the slave node, i tried to add the missing members (config system interface, edit xxx, set member blah) and it gave me this error: "entry not found in datasource"

[Agent_1994]

FWIW, an update. 

The customer couldn't find a maintenance window until yesterday. I re-created the cluster following these steps:

[ul]

Backed up the configuration of node "A" and "B".

Copied the "config system storage" block from "B"'s backup into "A"'s backup.

Copied the "set hostname" and "set alias" values from "B"'s backup into "A"'s backup.

Assigned another IP to the management interface.

Re-created the cluster. Node "A" priority was higher, of course.[/ul]

 And voilá, it worked. I'd love to say "it was because of", but i cant. I did the same the last time i was at the customer's premises. I know that nothing was changed on the Fortigates, but i can't be certain that they change something on the switches. 

 The other possibility, but this is a longshot, it that the slave unit was licensed the very same day i was doing the initial configuration. 

 Greets,