<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks everyone for your feedback!<br>
<br>
Ok I have written an initial fix, and here is how it works and what
I am seeing...<br>
<br>
[1] An update comes it and we update the local RUV.<br>
[2] We check this update against the fractional/stripped attrs in
each agmt.<br>
[3] If this update does replicate to at least one agmt, we write a
new attribute to the local ruv (currently call "nsds50replruv" - we
can improve the names later). If it doesn't replicate to any
replicas then we don't update the new ruv attribute. This all
happens at the same time in write_changelog_and_ruv(). So there is
no delay or copying of useless ruv info, and we write to the local
RUV instead of a new RUV in cn=config(which I had originally
proposed).<br>
<br>
[4] Here we made an update that is stripped by fractional
replication:<br>
<br>
Master A:<br>
<br>
ldapsearch -h localhost -D cn=dm -w password -b "dc=example,dc=com"
-xLLL
'(&(nsuniqueid=ffffffff-ffffffff-ffffffff-ffffffff)(objectclass=nstombstone))'
nsds50ruv nsds50replruv<br>
dn: cn=replica,cn=dc\3Dexample\2Cdc\3Dcom,cn=mapping tree,cn=config<br>
nsds50ruv: {replica 1 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="ldap://localhost.localdomain:389">ldap://localhost.localdomain:389</a>}
52583d80000000010000 52600339000000010000<br>
nsds50replruv: {replica 1 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="ldap://localhost.localdomain:389">ldap://localhost.localdomain:389</a>}
52583d80000000010000 5260030d000000010000<br>
...<br>
<br>
Master B<br>
<br>
ldapsearch -h localhost -D cn=dm -w password -b "dc=example,dc=com"
-xLLL -p 22222
'(&(nsuniqueid=ffffffff-ffffffff-ffffffff-ffffffff)(objectclass=nstombstone))'
nsds50ruv nsds50replruv<br>
dn: cn=replica,cn=dc\3Dexample\2Cdc\3Dcom,cn=mapping tree,cn=config<br>
nsds50ruv: {replica 1 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="ldap://localhost.localdomain:389">ldap://localhost.localdomain:389</a>}
52583d80000000010000 5260030d000000010000<br>
nsds50replruv: {replica 1 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="ldap://localhost.localdomain:389">ldap://localhost.localdomain:389</a>}
52583d80000000010000 5260030d000000010000<br>
...<br>
<br>
<br>
[5] If we look at the "fractional" ruv (nsds50replruv) on Master A,
it does correctly line up with the ruv on master B(nsds50ruv).<br>
[6] Then we make an update that does replicate, and now all the
ruv's line up.<br>
<br>
Master A<br>
<br>
ldapsearch -h localhost -D cn=dm -w password -b "dc=example,dc=com"
-xLLL
'(&(nsuniqueid=ffffffff-ffffffff-ffffffff-ffffffff)(objectclass=nstombstone))'
nsds50ruv nsds50replruv<br>
dn: cn=replica,cn=dc\3Dexample\2Cdc\3Dcom,cn=mapping tree,cn=config<br>
nsds50ruv: {replica 1 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="ldap://localhost.localdomain:389">ldap://localhost.localdomain:389</a>}
52583d80000000010000 52600790000000010000<br>
nsds50replruv: {replica 1 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="ldap://localhost.localdomain:389">ldap://localhost.localdomain:389</a>}
52583d80000000010000 52600790000000010000<br>
<br>
Master B<br>
<br>
ldapsearch -h localhost -D cn=dm -w password -b "dc=example,dc=com"
-xLLL -p 22222
'(&(nsuniqueid=ffffffff-ffffffff-ffffffff-ffffffff)(objectclass=nstombstone))'
nsds50ruv nsds50replruv<br>
dn: cn=replica,cn=dc\3Dexample\2Cdc\3Dcom,cn=mapping tree,cn=config<br>
nsds50ruv: {replica 1 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="ldap://localhost.localdomain:389">ldap://localhost.localdomain:389</a>}
52583d80000000010000 52600790000000010000<br>
nsds50replruv: {replica 1 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="ldap://localhost.localdomain:389">ldap://localhost.localdomain:389</a>}
52583d80000000010000 52600790000000010000<br>
<br>
There are still the same problems with fix, as I mentioned before,
except we're not updating the dse config. Now, I am concerned about
the performance hit of checking to see if a mod gets "replicated".
<br>
<br>
As for the "sync" question, this fix does change how that behaves,
or how repl-monitor already works. It's either behind(by a certain
amount of time), or in sync. I'm not trying to improve the current
repl status model.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I just wanted to see if I could get this working. Comments
welcome.<br>
<br>
Thanks again,<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/17/2013 05:44 AM, thierry bordaz
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:525FB16E.9050404@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/17/2013 11:06 AM, Ludwig
Krispenz wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:525FA882.1060002@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/17/2013 10:56 AM, thierry
bordaz wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:525FA63D.9020204@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/17/2013 10:49 AM, Ludwig
Krispenz wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:525FA4B3.6090209@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/17/2013 10:15 AM, thierry
bordaz wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:525F9C8A.4060605@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/16/2013 05:41 PM,
Ludwig Krispenz wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:525EB3AE.2050609@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/16/2013 05:28 PM,
Mark Reynolds wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:525EB0B9.8020901@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/16/2013 11:05 AM,
Ludwig Krispenz wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:525EAB4D.80308@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/15/2013 10:41 PM,
Mark Reynolds wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:525DA868.6040003@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family:
-moz-fixed; font-size: 12px;" lang="x-western"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47368">https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47368</a>
<br>
<br>
So we run into issues when trying to figure out
if replicas are in synch(if those replicas use
fractional replication and "strip mods"). What
happens is that an update is made on master A,
but due to fractional replication there is no
update made to any replicas. So if you look at
the ruv in the tombstone entry on each server,
it would appear they are out of synch. So using
the ruv in the db tombstone is no longer
accurate when using fractional replication. <br>
<br>
I'm proposing a new ruv to be stored in the
backend replica entry: e.g.
cn=replica,cn="dc=example,dc=com",cn=mapping
tree,cn=config. I'm calling this the "replicated
ruv". So whenever we actually send an update to
a replica, this ruv will get updated. </div>
</blockquote>
I don't see how this will help, you have an
additional info on waht has been replicated (which
is available on the consumer as well) and you have a
max csn, but you don't know if there are outstanding
fractional changes to be sent.<br>
</blockquote>
Well you will know on master A what operations get
replicated(this updates the new ruv before sending any
changes), and you can use this ruv to compare against
the other master B's ruv(in its replication
agreement). Maybe I am missing your point? </blockquote>
MY point is that the question is, what is NOT yet
replicated. Without fractional replication you have
states of the ruv on all servers, and if ruv(A) >
ruv(B) you know there are updates missing on B. With
fractional, if (ruv(A) > ruv(B) this might be ok or
not. If you keep an additional ruv on A when sending
updates to be, you can only record what ws sent or
attempted to send, but not what still has to be sent<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree with you Ludwig, but unless I missed something
would not be enough to know that the replica B is late or
in sync ?<br>
<br>
For example, we have updates U1 U2 U3 and U4. U3 should be
skipped by fractional replication.<br>
<br>
replica RUV (tombstone) on master_A contains U4 and
master_B replica RUV contains U1.<br>
Let's assume that as initial value of the "replicated ruv"
on master_A we have U1.<br>
Starting a replication session, master_A should send U2
and update the "replicated ruv" to U2.<br>
If the update is successfully applied on master_B,
master_B replica ruv is U2 and monitoring the two ruv
shoud show they are in sync.<br>
</blockquote>
They are not, since U4 is not yet replicated, in master_A
you see the "normal" ruv as U4 and the "replicated" ruv as
U2, but you don't know how many changes are between U2 and
U4 an if any of them should be replicated, the replicated
ruv is more or less a local copy of the remote ruv<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes I agree they are not this is a transient status. Transient
because the RA will continue going through the changelog until
it hits U4. At this point it will write U4 in the "replicated
RUV" and until master_B will apply U4 both server will appear
out of sync.<br>
My understanding is that this "replicated RUV" only says it is
in sync or not, but does not address how far a server is out
of sync from the other (how many updates are missing). When
you say it is more or less a copy, it is exactly what it is.
If it is a copy => in sync, if it different => out of
sync.<br>
</blockquote>
maybe we need to define what "in sync" means. For me in sync
means both servers have the same set of updates applied.<br>
<br>
Forget fractional for a moment, if we have standard replication
and master A is at U4 and master B is at U2, we say they are not
in sync - or not ? You could keep a replicated ruv for thos as
well, but this wouldn't change things.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree we need to agree of what "in sync" means <span
class="moz-smiley-s1"><span> :-) </span></span><br>
<br>
I would prefer to speak of 'fractional ruv' (in place of
'replicated ruv') for the new ruv proposed by Mark.<br>
'replica ruv' being for the traditional ruv (tombstone) used in
standard replication.<br>
<br>
With 'replica ruv' we are in sync when the 'replica ruv' on both
side have the same value.<br>
With 'fractional ruv' we are in sync when the 'fractional ruv' on
the supplier and the 'replica ruv' have the same value.<br>
<br>
In fractional replication, we have updates U1, U2, U3 and U4.
Let's U3 and U4 being skipped by fractional<br>
Let master_A 'replica ruv' is U4 and master_B 'replica ruv' is U2.
And no new updates.<br>
From a standard replication point of view they are out of sync,
but for fractional they are in sync.<br>
<br>
For fractional, how to know that that both masters are in sync.
With Mark solution 'fractional ruv' shows U2.<br>
<br>
Now a new update arrives U5 that is not skipped by fractional. <br>
master_A 'replicat ruv' is U5 and master_B 'replica ruv' is U2.<br>
until the replica agreement starts a new replication session,
'fractional ruv' shows U2. <br>
The servers are shown 'in sync', because the RA has not yet
started. <br>
From my understanding, the solution proposed by Mark has a
drawback where for a transient period (time to the RA to start its
jobs, evaluate and send U5, store it into the 'fractional ruv'),
the servers will appear 'in sync' although they are not. It could
be an issue with schedule replication but should be transient
wrong status under normal condition.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:525FA882.1060002@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:525FA63D.9020204@redhat.com" type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:525FA4B3.6090209@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:525F9C8A.4060605@redhat.com"
type="cite"> If the update is not applierd, master_B
replica ruv stays at U1 and the two ruv will show out of
sync.<br>
<br>
In the first case, we have a transient status of 'in sync'
because the replica agreement will evaluate U3 then U4
then send U4 and store it into the "replicated ruv". At
this point master_A and master_B will appear out of sync
until master_B will apply U4.<br>
If U4 was to be skipped by fractional we have master_B ruv
and Master_A replicated ruv both showing U2 and that is
correct both servers are in sync.<br>
<br>
Mark instead of storing the replicated ruv in the replica,
would not be possible to store it into the replica
agreement (one replicated ruv per RA). So that it can
solve the problem of different fractional replication
policy ?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:525EB3AE.2050609@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:525EB0B9.8020901@redhat.com"
type="cite">Do you mean changes that have not been
read from the changelog yet? My plan was to update
the new ruv in perform_operation() - right after all
the "stripping" has been done and there is something
to replicate. We need to have a ruv for replicated
operations.<br>
<br>
I guess there are other scenarios I didn't think of,
like if replication is in a backoff state, and valid
changes are coming in. Maybe, we could do test
"stripping" earlier in the replication process(when
writing to the changelog?), and then update the new
ruv there instead of waiting until we try and send the
changes.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:525EAB4D.80308@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:525DA868.6040003@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family:
-moz-fixed; font-size: 12px;" lang="x-western">Since
we can not compare this "replicated ruv" to the
replicas tombstone ruv, we can instead compare
the "replicated ruv" to the ruv in the replica's
repl agreement(unless it is a dedicated consumer
- here we might be able to still look at the db
tombstone ruv to determine the status). <br>
<br>
Problems with this approach: <br>
<br>
- All the servers need to have the same
replication configuration(the same fractional
replication policy and attribute stripping) to
give accurate results. <br>
<br>
- If one replica has an agreement that does NOT
filter the updates, but has agreements that do
filter updates, then we can not correctly
determine its synchronization state with the
fractional replicas. <br>
<br>
- Performance hit from updating another ruv(in
cn=config)? <br>
<br>
<br>
Fractional replication simply breaks our
monitoring process. I'm not sure, not without
updating the repl protocol, that we can cover
all deployment scenarios(mixed fractional repl
agmts, etc). However, I "think" this approach
would work for most deployments(compared to none
at the moment). For IPA, since they don't use
consumers, this approach would work for them.
And finally, all of this would have to be
handled by a updated version of repl-monitor.pl.
<br>
<br>
This is just my preliminary idea on how to
handle this. Feedback is welcome!! <br>
<br>
Thanks in advance, <br>
Mark <br>
<div class="moz-txt-sig"> <br>
</div>
</div>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark Reynolds
389 Development Team
Red Hat, Inc
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mreynolds@redhat.com">mreynolds@redhat.com</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">--
389-devel mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">--
389-devel mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark Reynolds
389 Development Team
Red Hat, Inc
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mreynolds@redhat.com">mreynolds@redhat.com</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">--
389-devel mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark Reynolds
389 Development Team
Red Hat, Inc
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mreynolds@redhat.com">mreynolds@redhat.com</a></pre>
</body>
</html>