[Fedora-directory-users] Fedora DS version compatibility

[Luke Bigum]

Hi all,

I'm looking to upgrade some Fedora DS 1.02 servers to 1.1. We use a master-slave
replicated configuration. Before I get too far into it, are there any known compatibility
issues between 1.1 and 1.02? I was planning on updating one of the slaves to 1.1 first,
leaving our master 1.02 server as it is for the time being. Is this possible or would I
have to upgrade the master first?

Thanks,

-Luke

-- 
Luke Bigum, Unix Administrator, Information Technology Services Division
Deakin University, Waterfront Campus, Victoria 3217 Australia.
Phone: [phone] International: [phone]
Fax:   [phone] International: [phone]
E-mail:   luke.bigum(a)deakin.edu.au
Website:   http://www.deakin.edu.au
 
Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B (Vic), 02414F (NSW)
 
Important Notice: The contents of this email transmission, including any
attachments, are intended solely for the named addressee and are
confidential; any unauthorized use, reproduction or storage of the contents
and any attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, please delete it and any attachments from your
system immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone.
Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments
are error or virus free.

[Rich Megginson]

Luke Bigum wrote:
>  Hi all,
>
>  I'm looking to upgrade some Fedora DS 1.02 servers to 1.1. We use a 
>  master-slave replicated configuration. Before I get too far into it, 
>  are there any known compatibility issues between 1.1 and 1.02? I was 
>  planning on updating one of the slaves to 1.1 first, leaving our 
>  master 1.02 server as it is for the time being. Is this possible or 
>  would I have to upgrade the master first? 
1.0.x can replicate to 1.1 and vice
versa, should be no issue there.
>  Thanks,
>
>  -Luke
>

[David Bogen]

On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:46 PM, Luke Bigum wrote:

>  I'm looking to upgrade some Fedora DS 1.02 servers to 1.1. We use a  
>  master-slave replicated configuration. Before I get too far into it,  
>  are there any known compatibility issues between 1.1 and 1.02? I was  
>  planning on updating one of the slaves to 1.1 first, leaving our  
>  master 1.02 server as it is for the time being. Is this possible or  
>  would I have to upgrade the master first?
>  
We took a few steps down that same road and were less than pleased  
with the results.  Our configuration directory is still running 1.0.2  
and a 1.1 slave was unable to register with it despite repeated  
attempts and some poking around inside the configuration directory.

So, we ended up with that slave running without being registered with  
the configuration directory.

 From where I sit, it looks like an all-or-nothing affair to upgrade  
to 1.1.

David

--
David Bogen :: [phone]
Unix SysAdmin :: IceCube Project
david.bogen(a)icecube.wisc.edu

[Luke Bigum]

Thanks for everyone's reply. David, I too had the same issue, even problems
registering with another 1.1 instance. A bit of digging and Googling led me to this Red
Hat Bug that has solved my registration problem, it might fix yours:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431103

The problem seems to be the setup script tries to create objects a few levels down without
first creating parent objects. The workaround is to create the entries by hand using the
template LDIF provided. For an LDIF file, don't forget to add "changetype:
add" after the distinguished name line, then:

ldapmodify -a -f ~/ldif.txt -x -H ldap://hydra.its.deakin.edu.au:389/ -D
"uid=admin,ou=Administrators,ou=TopologyManagement,o=NetscapeRoot" -w
'xxxxxx'

David Bogen wrote:
>  On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:46 PM, Luke Bigum wrote:
>  
> >
> > I'm looking to upgrade some Fedora DS 1.02 servers to 1.1. We use a 
> > master-slave replicated configuration. Before I get too far into it, 
> > are there any known compatibility issues between 1.1 and 1.02? I was 
> > planning on updating one of the slaves to 1.1 first, leaving our 
> > master 1.02 server as it is for the time being. Is this possible or 
> > would I have to upgrade the master first?
> >
>  
>  We took a few steps down that same road and were less than pleased with 
>  the results.  Our configuration directory is still running 1.0.2 and a 
>  1.1 slave was unable to register with it despite repeated attempts and 
>  some poking around inside the configuration directory.
>  
>  So, we ended up with that slave running without being registered with 
>  the configuration directory.
>  
>   From where I sit, it looks like an all-or-nothing affair to upgrade to 
>  1.1.
>  
>  David
>  
>  -- 
>  David Bogen :: [phone]
>  Unix SysAdmin :: IceCube Project
>  david.bogen(a)icecube.wisc.edu
>  
>  
>  
>  -- 
>  Fedora-directory-users mailing list
>  Fedora-directory-users(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users 
-- 
Luke Bigum, Unix Administrator, Information Technology Services Division
Deakin University, Waterfront Campus, Victoria 3217 Australia.
Phone: [phone] International: [phone]
Fax:   [phone] International: [phone]
E-mail:   luke.bigum(a)deakin.edu.au
Website:   http://www.deakin.edu.au
 
Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B (Vic), 02414F (NSW)
 
Important Notice: The contents of this email transmission, including any
attachments, are intended solely for the named addressee and are
confidential; any unauthorized use, reproduction or storage of the contents
and any attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, please delete it and any attachments from your
system immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone.
Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments
are error or virus free.

[Luke Bigum]

After I've had a chance to work with this further I don't recommend anyone
reregister any 1.1 servers with a 1.0.x configuration directory. While the installation of
a new server will not fail, attempting to access the new server from the old console does
not work. I'm still messing around, but I think I will have to move down the same path
as David and have each replicated node registered with itself.

Luke Bigum wrote:
>  Thanks for everyone's reply. David, I too had the same issue,
> even 
>  problems registering with another 1.1 instance. A bit of digging and 
>  Googling led me to this Red Hat Bug that has solved my registration 
>  problem, it might fix yours:
>  
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431103
>  
>  The problem seems to be the setup script tries to create objects a few 
>  levels down without first creating parent objects. The workaround is to 
>  create the entries by hand using the template LDIF provided. For an LDIF 
>  file, don't forget to add "changetype: add" after the distinguished name 
>  line, then:
>  
>  ldapmodify -a -f ~/ldif.txt -x -H ldap://hydra.its.deakin.edu.au:389/ -D 
>  "uid=admin,ou=Administrators,ou=TopologyManagement,o=NetscapeRoot" -w 
>  'xxxxxx'
>  
>  David Bogen wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:46 PM, Luke Bigum wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I'm looking to upgrade some Fedora DS 1.02 servers to 1.1. We use a 
> >> master-slave replicated configuration. Before I get too far into it, 
> >> are there any known compatibility issues between 1.1 and 1.02? I was 
> >> planning on updating one of the slaves to 1.1 first, leaving our 
> >> master 1.02 server as it is for the time being. Is this possible or 
> >> would I have to upgrade the master first?
> >>
> >
> > We took a few steps down that same road and were less than pleased 
> > with the results.  Our configuration directory is still running 1.0.2 
> > and a 1.1 slave was unable to register with it despite repeated 
> > attempts and some poking around inside the configuration directory.
> >
> > So, we ended up with that slave running without being registered with 
> > the configuration directory.
> >
> >  From where I sit, it looks like an all-or-nothing affair to upgrade 
> > to 1.1.
> >
> > David
> >
> > -- 
> > David Bogen :: [phone]
> > Unix SysAdmin :: IceCube Project
> > david.bogen(a)icecube.wisc.edu
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > Fedora-directory-users mailing list
> > Fedora-directory-users(a)redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>   
-- 
Luke Bigum, Unix Administrator, Information Technology Services Division
Deakin University, Waterfront Campus, Victoria 3217 Australia.
Phone: [phone] International: [phone]
Fax:   [phone] International: [phone]
E-mail:   luke.bigum(a)deakin.edu.au
Website:   http://www.deakin.edu.au
 
Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B (Vic), 02414F (NSW)
 
Important Notice: The contents of this email transmission, including any
attachments, are intended solely for the named addressee and are
confidential; any unauthorized use, reproduction or storage of the contents
and any attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, please delete it and any attachments from your
system immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone.
Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments
are error or virus free.

[Chris St. Pierre]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Luke Bigum wrote:

>  I'm looking to upgrade some Fedora DS 1.02 servers to 1.1. We use
> a 
>  master-slave replicated configuration. Before I get too far into it, are there 
>  any known compatibility issues between 1.1 and 1.02? I was planning on 
>  updating one of the slaves to 1.1 first, leaving our master 1.02 server as it 
>  is for the time being. Is this possible or would I have to upgrade the master 
>  first? 
We've been transitioning our 1.0.4 boxes to 1.1 one at a time.  We
have four machines in a multimaster setup, and we've been running a
mixed cluster for four weeks now, without any replication issues at
all.

We only use the base DS, though, so I can't comment on any of the
configuration directory issues one of the other responders reported.

Chris St. Pierre
Unix Systems Administrator
Nebraska Wesleyan University