All, I'd like to have some suggestion about 2 things related with this.
1. The 'Full Scan' management Now, I set it running every time a user logs in to the UI, but I think it will be necessary to make it run with some interval also. But I'm not familiar with the config file, so can anyone give some directions how to manage the time interval in the config file and the best way to run it with the time interval? 2. Repository of regions with their login information. To send/receive requests to/from other regions using API interfaces, we need the region information including login info of each region. I was planning to use a table as a repository, but I think it is better to store it in the config file to make the access a little lighter. Any recommendation on this? Your reply with directions & comments will be very appreciated. Thanks Alex Ough On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungard.com> wrote: > All, > > A little bit of updates after a long vacation, > I'm currently creating automated test scripts that randomly > create/delete/update domain/account/user objects in random regions to > trigger the sync-up and full scans regularly. > Once they are completed, I'll post it in the github also and submit the > review requests for this implementation. > > Let me know if you have any comments. > Thanks > Alex Ough > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungard.com> wrote: > >> All, >> >> I updated the wiki after some logic changes, so please review them, >> especially "Full Scan", which is newly introduced. >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Domain-Account-User+Sync+Up+Among+Multiple+Regions >> >> And I implemented this functionality in Java and you can get the pull >> request of it here. >> (This does not include the 'full scan' yet and I'm currently working >> on this to finalize.) >> https://github.com/alexoughsg/Albatross/pull/1 >> >> Especially, I really want to have your review on the "Full Scan" logic >> to confirm if it does not miss any cases. >> Thanks for your interest and your feedback will be very helpful. >> Alex Ough >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungard.com> wrote: >> > Good point, Chiradeep, >> > >> > I'm not sure if you reviewed my design doc in the wiki, but my design >> is to >> > just skip any actions for target resources that already took place by >> any >> > means. >> > But the issue is when conflict actions in the same resources (like >> create & >> > delete the same users) are enqueued in reversed orders, which is >> hopefully >> > rare. >> > >> > And to support consistency in the AP system, I'd like to provide a full >> sync >> > up, which will sync up all data in all region servers by selecting a >> region >> > as a master and force its data to other regions. >> > >> > Let me know what you think. >> > Thanks >> > Alex Ough >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Chiradeep Vittal >> > <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Missed this one. In a single region, the CloudStack DB is the master >> for >> >> most operations. If the infra is not in the state the DB says it should >> >> be, generally the approach is to whack it and make it conform. For some >> >> exceptions (live migration/related use cases are exceptions) the DB is >> the >> >> slave -- the point is that the inconsistency that inevitably arise in >> an >> >> AP system need a conflict resolution system. In a single region, the >> >> default is to assume that the MySQL DB is correct and handle other >> cases >> >> carefully. >> >> >> >> In a multi-region case, there is no master: disable an account in one >> >> region, and it may not propagate to the other regions for many >> hours/days. >> >> You could add a user in one region and then add the same user in a >> >> different region and conflict before the sync happens. >> >> >> >> This is of course not a problem unique to CloudStack -- people pay >> mucho >> >> dinero for Global AD/LDAP sync. I don't think this is a problem for >> >> CloudStack core to solve: I support the event-based mechanism for those >> >> who want this facility. >> >> >> >> Distributed systems are hard and research continues to try and make >> >> building these systems easier, but there are very few solutions for >> global >> >> state synchronization (Google Spanner comes to mind) >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Chiradeep >> >> >> >> >> >> On 11/8/13 4:53 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >We are already (generally) AP for most infra changes really. I'd use >> that >> >> >model. Eventual consistency is better in this scenario. >> >> > >> >> >> On Nov 8, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Chiradeep Vittal >> >> >><chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I'd also like to highlight that it isn't a trivial problem. >> >> >> Let's say there's 3 regions: this means there are 3 copies of the >> user >> >> >> database that are geographically separated by network links that >> fail >> >> >> quite often (orders of magnitude more than intra-DC networks). >> >> >> >> >> >> Here we run into the consequences of the CAP theorem [1]. >> >> >> We can either have a CP or AP system: either approach makes some >> >> >>tradeoffs: >> >> >> 1. If we run a AP system, then the challenge is to resolve >> conflicting >> >> >> updates >> >> >> 2. If we run a CP system, then the challenge is to detect partitions >> >> >> reliably and disallow updates during partitions. >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 11/7/13 11:58 AM, "Chip Childers" <chipchild...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Chiradeep Vittal >> >> >>> <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> It may be an admin burden, but it has to be optional. There are >> other >> >> >>>> ways >> >> >>>> to achieve global sync (e.g., LDAP/AD/Oauth). >> >> >>>> A lot of service providers who run cloudstack have their own user >> >> >>>> database >> >> >>>> / portal. In their implementations the CloudStack database is not >> the >> >> >>>> master source of user records, but a slave. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> +1 to it being optional. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >
