Perhaps we could solve both issues and just allow it to happen on DS config but throw up a message when it is saved that says "hey we're going to do this but it's really not without an element of risk and ats isn't designed to work properly with multiple identical origins. We recommend you use an alternative fqdn blah blah blah."
Something along those lines, anyway. Derek > On Jan 23, 2019, at 7:18 PM, Rawlin Peters <rawlin.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Simply prohibiting duplicate origin FQDNs has been vetoed now, so we > can't really move forward with that unless the vetoers change their > minds and remove their -1s. > > Currently that leaves us with checking at DS create/update whether or > not it would conflict with a shared origin due to different DS types, > qstring config, etc. I am -1 on that idea since I think it will be > difficult to maintain and enumerate all the possible conflicting > cases, will present confusing error messages to the user to which the > solution would just be "create a CNAME record" anyways, and that the > ATS parent.config should really be per-remap rather than "global". I > know there has been some discussion in the ATS community about making > parent.config per-remap, but I don't have much information there. > > That is to say, I don't think there is a great solution to this > problem right now that we can all agree upon, but maybe our efforts > would be better spent in the ATS community by making a per-remap > parent.config. Then the duplicate origin problem in Traffic Control > would go away. > > Another option could be to have some kind of generic rules engine that > would allow an organization to create some set of rules that DSes > would have to abide by. For example, no duplicate origins, an origin > can't be in a list of known malicious domains, you can't use the DS > type "HTTP_NO_CACHE", maxDnsAnswers must be < 5, TTLs must be > 30 and > < 6000, protocol must be HTTPS, intitialDispersion must be < 10, DSCP > must be 40, etc. It seems like for something truly self-service you'd > probably need to set up some rules for your users to abide by that > might not necessarily apply to ALL organizations. Just a thought. I > don't think the duplicate origins problem alone would warrant > something like that, but if it also provided a solution for the > self-service effort, maybe it would be worth it. > > - Rawlin > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:15 AM Gelinas, Derek > <derek_geli...@comcast.com> wrote: >> >> That's the problem. We either need to be smart enough to recognize that in >> our config and warn the user or just prevent it and suggest to the user that >> they use a different fqdn. >> >> My vote is for preventing it at this point. >> >>> On Jan 23, 2019, at 12:50 AM, Gray, Jonathan <jonathan_g...@comcast.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> It's not just differing types, it's anything that affects the parent.config >>> which also includes the, qstring configuration, MSO parents/config, etc. as >>> well. >>> >>> Jonathan G >>> >>> >>> On 1/22/19, 2:33 PM, "Dave Neuman" <neu...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> -1 on the one DS to Origin limitation. I think there are legit use cases >>> for it. >>> I would be +1 on the idea if we include type though. Two DSs can share >>> the >>> same origin as long as they are of the same type (DNS, HTTP, HTTP_LIVE), >>> etc. You shouldn't be able to have two DSs with the same origin but >>> different types. >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 7:53 AM Fieck, Brennan <brennan_fi...@comcast.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't see this as a complicated use case or a barrier to entry, an >>>> extremely basic introduction to ATC would only make use of one DS >>>> (shameless CDN-in-a-Box plug). >>>> It seems far more complicated for a user to be using many DSes to serve a >>>> single origin - we can easily make it clear in the docs that the two have a >>>> 1:1 relationship, with a footnote about CNAME records for users with the >>>> knowledge, resources, and need for such workarounds. >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Mark Torluemke <mtorlue...@apache.org> >>>> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 1:21 PM >>>> To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Origins assigned to Multipe Delivery Services >>>> produces indeterminate parent.config >>>> >>>>>> 1. Prohibit creating new delivery services that would share an >>>> existing origin and prohibit updating a delivery service to a shared >>>> origin >>>> In case my position has been lost, I'm still -1 on this. :) IMO, we >>>> shouldn't let the few complicated use cases increase the barrier to entry >>>> (to using ATC) for the masses. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:53 AM Rawlin Peters <rawlin.pet...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Alright, I'm trying to sum up this discussion so far since it seems >>>>> like everyone went on vacation and didn't really get a chance to wrap >>>>> this one up: >>>>> - duplicate origins cause undefined behavior >>>>> - we need a way to migrate to a future that is free of duplicate >>>>> origins in Traffic Control >>>>> - we need a visual and easy way to determine if Traffic Ops currently >>>>> contains duplicate origins, so that operators are incentivized to fix >>>>> them rather than let it slide indefinitely >>>>> - operators should have a fair amount of time to fix their duplicate >>>>> origins >>>>> >>>>> I believe this is what we've mostly agreed upon but haven't clearly voted >>>>> on: >>>>> >>>>> In release N we will: >>>>> 1. Prohibit creating new delivery services that would share an >>>>> existing origin and prohibit updating a delivery service to a shared >>>>> origin >>>>> 2. Add some kind of visual indicator that duplicate origins are a >>>>> problem that need to be fixed before release N+1; otherwise, an >>>>> upgrade to N+1 will be prohibited. >>>>> >>>>> In release N+1 we will: >>>>> 3. Include a DB migration that adds a uniqueness constraint on origin >>>>> FQDN, removing the API-level checks for that. >>>>> 4. Prevent an upgrade to N+1 if duplicate origins are found (this >>>>> might occur as a byproduct of step 3). >>>>> >>>>> I am +1 on this plan and believe this would hit on all the summarized >>>>> points above. Please provide a clear vote on this plan so that we can >>>>> dive deeper in the details (i.e. what release 'N' is, the best visual >>>>> indicator for step 2, and a friendly way to handle step 4). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Rawlin >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 3:39 PM Jeremy Mitchell <mitchell...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Not sure TP is the right place for a warning like "clean up this >>>>>> 'duplicate' origin or your next upgrade will fail". Most users of our >>>>>> system will be like "not my problem". >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:58 AM Fieck, Brennan < >>>>> brennan_fi...@comcast.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Probably. It would impact load times by a bit, but the page for an >>>>>>> individual object is not our bottleneck. >>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>> From: Robert Butts <r...@apache.org> >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:50 AM >>>>>>> To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Origins assigned to Multipe Delivery >>>>> Services >>>>>>> produces indeterminate parent.config >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Including a warning on startup and an API constraint preventing >>>>> adding >>>>>>> more bad data in the next 3.0.0 Release Candidate >>>>>>>> - Adding a database constraint immediately into master that won't >>>> be >>>>>>> cherry-picked into 3.0.0 but should be included in 3.1.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand Jonathan's objection, but at some point, we have to be >>>>> able to >>>>>>> move forward. This is a good compromise: deprecate, then remove. That >>>>> gives >>>>>>> people a full major version to fix their data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be ideal if it were more than just a logged warning, though. >>>>> Can we >>>>>>> add a big red banner in Traffic Portal, on the Delivery Service page >>>>> for >>>>>>> any DS with a duplicate origin, telling users to fix it, and that >>>> they >>>>>>> won't be able to upgrade to the next major version until it's fixed? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:57 AM Fieck, Brennan < >>>>> brennan_fi...@comcast.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So it seems like nobody has a problem with the "how" - disallowing >>>>>>>> duplicate origin FQDNs on Delivery Services - but we never reached >>>> a >>>>>>>> consensus on "when". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I stand by my previous proposal: >>>>>>>> - Including a warning on startup and an API constraint preventing >>>>> adding >>>>>>>> more bad data in the next 3.0.0 Release Candidate >>>>>>>> - Adding a database constraint immediately into master that won't >>>> be >>>>>>>> cherry-picked into 3.0.0 but should be included in 3.1.0 >>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>> From: Rawlin Peters <rawlin.pet...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 4:59 PM >>>>>>>> To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Origins assigned to Multipe Delivery >>>>> Services >>>>>>>> produces indeterminate parent.config >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, building more around DS types will make it even harder to get >>>>>>>> away from DS types in the future too, which I know is something >>>> we've >>>>>>>> discussed on this mailing list before. It also adds to the overhead >>>>> of >>>>>>>> Delivery Service Topologies, since a lot of the DS types won't >>>>>>>> carryover into that world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Rawlin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 2:42 PM Fieck, Brennan >>>>>>>> <brennan_fi...@comcast.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1. >>>>>>>>> If there's a simple way to work around duplicate origins being >>>>>>>> prohibited, >>>>>>>>> then we should rely on that instead of "enumerating all those >>>>> possible >>>>>>>> conflicting >>>>>>>>> settings, which are not only highly complex and confusing, but >>>> also >>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>>> entrench us in only supporting ATS as a caching proxy (hurting >>>>> efforts >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> integrate e.g. Grove, nginx etc.) >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: Rawlin Peters <rawlin.pet...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 2:20 PM >>>>>>>>> To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Origins assigned to Multipe Delivery >>>>>>>> Services produces indeterminate parent.config >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are a number of different DS settings at play that can >>>>>>>>> potentially cause conflicts. The question is: do we want to get >>>>> into >>>>>>>>> the business of enumerating all those possible conflicting >>>>> settings or >>>>>>>>> just simply prohibit duplicate origins altogether? I think we can >>>>> dig >>>>>>>>> in and get that "sufficiently advanced sql query" to check for >>>>>>>>> conflicting origins, but is that something we want to carry along >>>>> for >>>>>>>>> the foreseeable future? Aren't CNAMEs relatively cheaper than >>>>>>>>> developing and maintaining that code and the mental overhead >>>>> required >>>>>>>>> in understanding why you're getting an error that says your >>>>> requested >>>>>>>>> DS would cause an origin conflict? I think at the point you've >>>>>>>>> requested a DS that would create a conflict, you've chosen those >>>>>>>>> settings for a reason and would probably prefer to just >>>> create/use >>>>> a >>>>>>>>> CNAME in your new DS and keep the rest of your settings the same. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thinking in terms of errors, I'm imagining: >>>>>>>>> "cannot create delivery service: origin fqdn 'foo.example.com' >>>>> already >>>>>>>> in use" >>>>>>>>> vs >>>>>>>>> "cannot create delivery service: origin fqdn 'foo.example.com' >>>>> already >>>>>>>>> in use as type DNS_LIVE_NATNL, which is incompatible with your >>>>> chosen >>>>>>>>> type of HTTP_NO_CACHE" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At that point you'd probably say to yourself, "uh, I need >>>>>>>>> HTTP_NO_CACHE, so what am I supposed to do now?" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As a lazy developer I'm +1 on prohibiting duplicate origin fqdns >>>>>>>>> because the resulting code will be simpler, but I think >>>> eliminating >>>>>>>>> the mental overhead for operators could be worthwhile too. If we >>>>> can >>>>>>>>> agree on an end state of prohibiting duplicate origins >>>> altogether, >>>>> we >>>>>>>>> can start working on a design to smoothly transition us to that >>>>> point. >>>>>>>>> Are we willing to live with "just CNAME your origin fqdn" as the >>>>>>>>> standard solution to duplicates? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Rawlin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:27 PM Gelinas, Derek >>>>>>>>> <derek_geli...@comcast.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The only situation in which they can share origins is if a) the >>>>>>>> origins are shared in an MSO configuration but still have different >>>>>>> defined >>>>>>>> origin fields in the delivery service, or if they're assigned to >>>>>>> completely >>>>>>>> different cachegroups. It's when two delivery services share the >>>>> same >>>>>>>> edges that there's an issue, because you end up with parent.config >>>>>>> issues. >>>>>>>> Actually you could even get away with it in mids as long as you >>>>> weren't >>>>>>>> doing anything like MSO to it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Could get messy real fast, though. Best to just create a >>>> second >>>>>>> FQDN. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Derek >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/18, 3:23 PM, "Fieck, Brennan" < >>>>> brennan_fi...@comcast.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So no two Delivery Services may share an origin *regardless >>>>> of >>>>>>>> cache hierarchy* ? I've been told that DNS Delivery Services can >>>>> have the >>>>>>>> same origin as HTTP Delivery Services because they obey the same >>>>> cache >>>>>>>> hierarchy. You're saying that would still produce invalid output >>>>> and/or >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> explicitly disallowed by ATS? >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Butts <r...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 1:09 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Origins assigned to Multipe >>>>> Delivery >>>>>>>> Services produces indeterminate parent.config >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> can you give an example of what parent.config looks like >>>>> when 2 >>>>>>>> ds's share >>>>>>>>>> an origin and have different a different topology? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Answering because I encountered this directly, when >>>> rewriting >>>>>>>> parent.config. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For example: Suppose you have one Delivery Service: >>>>>>>>>> XML_ID: foo >>>>>>>>>> Type: HTPT_LIVE_NATL >>>>>>>>>> Query String Handling: 1 - ignore in cache key, and pass up >>>>>>>>>> Origin Server Base URL: http://foo.example.net >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And another Delivery Service: >>>>>>>>>> XML_ID: bar >>>>>>>>>> Type: HTPT_LIVE_NATL >>>>>>>>>> Query String Handling: 1 - ignore in cache key, and pass up >>>>>>>>>> Origin Server Base URL: http://foo.example.net >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ATS only supports unique `dest_domain` entries in >>>>> parent.config. >>>>>>>> Therefore, >>>>>>>>>> the parent.config generated for a server assigned to both >>>> of >>>>>>> these >>>>>>>> Delivery >>>>>>>>>> Services with either be: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> dest_domain=foo.example.net port=80 go_direct=true >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> dest_domain=foo.example.net port=80 go_direct=false >>>>>>>> qstring=consider >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Right now, it's arbitrary which Perl Traffic Ops inserts, >>>> and >>>>>>> Perl >>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>>>> no warning or error of any kind (the pending Go >>>>> parent.config PR >>>>>>>> logs an >>>>>>>>>> error). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Whichever is arbitrarily inserted, the resulting remaps for >>>>> the >>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>> delivery service will be wrong. Either `foo` requests will >>>>> drop >>>>>>>> the query >>>>>>>>>> string when they shouldn't, and go to the mid when they >>>>>>> shouldn't; >>>>>>>> or `bar` >>>>>>>>>> requests will use the query string and skip the mid when it >>>>>>>> shouldn't. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does that make sense? The only correct solution, is to >>>>> somehow >>>>>>>> prevent >>>>>>>>>> different DSes having the same origin, and tell tenants >>>> they >>>>> must >>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>> CNAMEs if they need. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This isn't a bug in Traffic Control. ATS fundamentally >>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>> multiple remap rules with the same parent FQDN with >>>> different >>>>>>>>>> configurations. Hence, Traffic Control needs to prohibit >>>>> that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:24 PM Jeremy Mitchell < >>>>>>>> mitchell...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> brennan, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> can you give an example of what parent.config looks like >>>>> when 2 >>>>>>>> ds's share >>>>>>>>>>> an origin and have different a different topology? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> jeremy >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:39 AM Fieck, Brennan < >>>>>>>> brennan_fi...@comcast.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear, the "Warning" I'm talking about would >>>>> happen at >>>>>>>> startup, but >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like a UI-only constraint to come with that to >>>>> disallow >>>>>>>> using the API >>>>>>>>>>>> to bind the same origin to multiple Delivery Services >>>>> with >>>>>>>> varying >>>>>>>>>>>> topography requirements. It wouldn't change the >>>> existing >>>>>>> data, >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>> prevent >>>>>>>>>>>> users from creating more bad data. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "warning" doesn't really sufficiently describe that, my >>>>> bad. >>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Fieck, Brennan <brennan_fi...@comcast.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 11:24 AM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Origins assigned to Multipe >>>>>>>> Delivery Services >>>>>>>>>>>> produces indeterminate parent.config >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well the cost of fixing this bug is a constraint on the >>>>> data. >>>>>>>> Unless we >>>>>>>>>>>> make it a UI-only constraint - which I'm personally >>>>> against - >>>>>>>> there must >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>> some point in the future where ATC cannot reasonably be >>>>>>>> expected to work >>>>>>>>>>>> with data that violates that constraint. The question >>>> is >>>>> when >>>>>>>> that should >>>>>>>>>>>> occur, which should likely happen at a minor version >>>>> release. >>>>>>>> Minor not >>>>>>>>>>>> major because it doesn't involve a change in data >>>>> structures, >>>>>>>> merely >>>>>>>>>>>> relationships between them - in my opinion that's a >>>> minor >>>>>>>> version change >>>>>>>>>>>> but that's definitely up for debate. With several >>>> release >>>>>>>> candidates for >>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0.0 that _doesn't_ include this restriction already >>>> in >>>>> the >>>>>>>> wild, I >>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't recommend putting it in there. That means to >>>>> fix the >>>>>>>> bug as soon >>>>>>>>>>>> as possible it should go in 3.1.0 which should be the >>>>> target >>>>>>>> of "master" >>>>>>>>>>>> after the 3.0.0 release is cut from it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So I'd recommend immediately implementing the >>>> constraint >>>>> in >>>>>>>> master with a >>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to upgrade with bad data, and backport a >>>> warning >>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> the future >>>>>>>>>>>> behavior into 3.0.0 or as part of a 3.0.1 provided we >>>> had >>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> changes >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> would warrant a micro version bump. >>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Gray, Jonathan <jonathan_g...@comcast.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 9:34 AM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Origins assigned to Multipe >>>>>>>> Delivery Services >>>>>>>>>>>> produces indeterminate parent.config >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -1 Holding an ATC upgrade hostage to data cleanup seems >>>>> like >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> bad idea. >>>>>>>>>>>> The issue isn't great, but it's also not new. We >>>> should >>>>>>> allow >>>>>>>> teams to >>>>>>>>>>> fix >>>>>>>>>>>> their data at their normal paces if it doesn't create >>>>>>>> significant >>>>>>>>>>> overhead >>>>>>>>>>>> or an inherant blocker for new functionality or >>>>> correction of >>>>>>>> other major >>>>>>>>>>>> problems imho. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan G >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/18, 9:28 AM, "Fieck, Brennan" < >>>>>>>> brennan_fi...@comcast.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Another option is we could detect collisions at >>>>> startup >>>>>>>> and simply >>>>>>>>>>>> refuse to continue with the upgrade until the data is >>>>> fixed. >>>>>>>> That would >>>>>>>>>>>> allow people using the now-unsupported data format to >>>>>>> continue >>>>>>>> to use >>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>> old versions of Traffic Ops without wrecking their >>>>> database, >>>>>>>> but also >>>>>>>>>>>> provide an incentive to clean up the data. >>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Gray, Jonathan <jonathan_g...@comcast.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 5:12 AM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Origins assigned to >>>>> Multipe >>>>>>>> Delivery >>>>>>>>>>>> Services produces indeterminate parent.config >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm generally a fan of constrain your data in your >>>>>>>> database, but not >>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily exclusively. I see this as a one-way >>>>>>>> cleanup/conversion so >>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to be configurable; otherwise you have to >>>>> ask >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> question >>>>>>>>>>>> what happens if someone turns it off. That said, >>>>> something >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the UI >>>>>>>>>>> layer >>>>>>>>>>>> would be nice to prevent spending significant >>>> quantities >>>>> of >>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>> building a >>>>>>>>>>>> complex DS only to have it fail to post for reasons >>>> that >>>>>>> could >>>>>>>> have been >>>>>>>>>>>> known earlier. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The way my brain works in this case: >>>>>>>>>>>> If !unique_constraint_exists_query() >>>>>>>>>>>> If has_duplicates_query() >>>>>>>>>>>> show_warning() >>>>>>>>>>>> else >>>>>>>>>>>> add_unique_constraint() >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to which the API and UI configuration could also >>>>> make use >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> unique_constraint_exists_query() to drive additional >>>>> layer >>>>>>>> constraints if >>>>>>>>>>>> desired. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan G >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/18, 1:11 PM, "Rawlin Peters" < >>>>>>>> rawlin.pet...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is an interesting idea...detect at TO >>>>> startup >>>>>>>> whether or not >>>>>>>>>>>> there are duplicate origins and operate in a >>>>> "prevent >>>>>>>> duplicate >>>>>>>>>>>> origins" state if no duplicates are found or >>>>> "prevent >>>>>>>> conflicting >>>>>>>>>>>> DS >>>>>>>>>>>> topologies" state if duplicates are found? So >>>>> once >>>>>>>> operators have >>>>>>>>>>>> replaced all the duplicate origins with CNAMEs, >>>>> TO >>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>> essentially >>>>>>>>>>>> operate in a "prohibit all duplicate origins" >>>>> state. >>>>>>>> That would >>>>>>>>>>>> probably make for a simpler transition, but I'd >>>>> want >>>>>>>> to remove >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> logic in a following release that strictly >>>>> prohibits >>>>>>>> duplicate >>>>>>>>>>>> origins >>>>>>>>>>>> (assuming that the community agrees we should >>>>>>> prohibit >>>>>>>> duplicate >>>>>>>>>>>> origins altogether). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As for DB constraints vs UI, I was thinking >>>> those >>>>>>>> DS-type >>>>>>>>>>>> constraints >>>>>>>>>>>> I pointed out would live in the API. It would >>>>>>>> basically be added >>>>>>>>>>>> validation in the deliveryservices POST/PUT >>>>> endpoint >>>>>>>> that checks >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> DB for existing DSes that conflict with the >>>>> requested >>>>>>>> DS. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Rawlin >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:35 PM Gray, Jonathan >>>>>>>>>>>> <jonathan_g...@comcast.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> These kinds of conditions should be >>>> detectable >>>>>>> with a >>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently advanced SQL query. Is it possible to add >>>>> the >>>>>>>> constraint if >>>>>>>>>>>> it passes and emit a warning during TO startup >>>> otherwise? >>>>>>>> That would let >>>>>>>>>>>> you know the condition exists at startup but not >>>> getting >>>>> in >>>>>>>> your way and >>>>>>>>>>>> keep you out of trouble once you've cleaned up. We >>>> made >>>>> a >>>>>>>> mistake early >>>>>>>>>>>> on, but this would acknowledge it was bad and encourage >>>>> it to >>>>>>>> be fixed at >>>>>>>>>>>> the speed of operations teams. Also this puts the >>>>> constraint >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>> database rather than the UI which is really where the >>>>>>>> contention is for >>>>>>>>>>>> usability. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan G >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/18, 11:38 AM, "Rawlin Peters" < >>>>>>>>>>> rawlin.pet...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We occasionally discuss this issue but >>>>> haven't >>>>>>>> tackled it >>>>>>>>>>>> yet. I think >>>>>>>>>>>>> the main issue is just that duplicate >>>>> origins >>>>>>>> have been >>>>>>>>>>>> allowed since >>>>>>>>>>>>> the beginning, and now everyone's Traffic >>>>> Ops >>>>>>>> could be >>>>>>>>>>>> littered with >>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicate origins. Also, depending on the >>>>>>> config >>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> duplicate >>>>>>>>>>>>> delivery services, the origins might not >>>>> be in >>>>>>>> conflict at >>>>>>>>>>>> all (if >>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't have different topology >>>>>>> constraints). >>>>>>>> I would >>>>>>>>>>>> love for us >>>>>>>>>>>>> to just add a uniqueness constraint, but >>>>> there >>>>>>>> would need >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> be a fair >>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of warning to the community before >>>>> doing >>>>>>>> so and >>>>>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>>>>>>> invalidate a significant amount of valid >>>>> use >>>>>>>> cases. >>>>>>>>>>>> Operators would >>>>>>>>>>>>> need time to make DNS CNAME records for >>>> the >>>>>>>> duplicate >>>>>>>>>>>> origins and >>>>>>>>>>>>> update their DSes to use the different >>>>> CNAMEs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think as a good first step to >>>>> eliminating the >>>>>>>> use of >>>>>>>>>>>> duplicate >>>>>>>>>>>>> origins altogether, we should identify >>>>> which >>>>>>>> "topology >>>>>>>>>>>> constraints" >>>>>>>>>>>>> actually cause conflicting config when >>>> used >>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> duplicate >>>>>>>>>>>> origins and >>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent creating DSes with duplicate >>>>> origins >>>>>>> _if >>>>>>>> it would >>>>>>>>>>>> cause a >>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict with an existing DS that uses >>>> the >>>>> same >>>>>>>> origin_. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, I believe an HTTP and >>>>> DNS-type DS >>>>>>>> can live >>>>>>>>>>>> happily >>>>>>>>>>>>> side-by-side using the same origin >>>>> (probably >>>>>>>> need different >>>>>>>>>>>>> routing_names?), but scenarios like HTTP >>>>> and >>>>>>>> HTTP_LIVE, or >>>>>>>>>>>> DNS and >>>>>>>>>>>>> HTTP_NO_CACHE sharing the same origin >>>> will >>>>>>> cause >>>>>>>> conflicts >>>>>>>>>>>> for sure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> So maybe we can start by making sure the >>>> DS >>>>>>>> types "match" >>>>>>>>>>>> when using >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same origin: >>>>>>>>>>>>> HTTP + DNS: possibly good, if they have >>>>>>>> different routing >>>>>>>>>>>> names? >>>>>>>>>>>>> HTTP_LIVE + HTTP_LIVE_NATNL: bad >>>>>>>>>>>>> HTTP_NO_CACHE + [any other type]: bad >>>>>>>>>>>>> HTTP_LIVE + HTTP: bad >>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are most likely other conflict >>>>> scenarios >>>>>>>> that don't >>>>>>>>>>>> involve the >>>>>>>>>>>>> DS types, but I think this would be a >>>> good >>>>>>>> start. In the >>>>>>>>>>>> future with >>>>>>>>>>>>> Delivery Service Topologies (aka Flexible >>>>>>>> Cachegroups aka >>>>>>>>>>>> Bring Your >>>>>>>>>>>>> Own Topology), we might be able to >>>> prohibit >>>>>>>> assigning a DS >>>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>>>> Topology if the DS's origin is already >>>>> used by >>>>>>>> another DS >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> different Topology. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Rawlin >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:52 AM Fieck, >>>>> Brennan >>>>>>>>>>>>> <brennan_fi...@comcast.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As some of you may be aware, >>>>> `parent.config` >>>>>>>> files >>>>>>>>>>>> generated by Traffic Ops can vary wildly when an origin >>>>> is >>>>>>>> assigned to >>>>>>>>>>>> multiple Delivery Services. This results in undefined >>>>>>>> behavior. I'm told >>>>>>>>>>>> that the conflict only happens when two Delivery >>>> Services >>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>> "topology requirements" use the same origin, whatever >>>>> that >>>>>>>> means (content >>>>>>>>>>>> routing type?). Regardless, the issue should be >>>>> addressed. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> obvious >>>>>>>>>>>> solution is to put in place a database constraint that >>>>>>>> prevents an origin >>>>>>>>>>>> from being assigned to more that one Delivery Service >>>>> with >>>>>>> API >>>>>>>> checks in >>>>>>>>>>>> place that would provide helpful error messages when an >>>>>>>> attempt is made >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> violate the constraint. However, would that mess with >>>>> things >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>> Multi-Site Origin? Or is it just not viable for some >>>>> other >>>>>>>> reason? If it >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> a good solution, I'm prepared to work on a fix that >>>>> utilizes >>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>
