On 05/06/2015 03:19 PM, Martin Babinsky wrote:
Hello Thierry,
replies are inline.
On 05/06/2015 02:22 PM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 05/06/2015 01:54 PM, Martin Babinsky wrote:
The attached patch tries to fix
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4378
After discussion with Thierry we concluded that while this issue is
more complex than it seems, the transition from REPLACE to DEL/ADD
operations when updating nsDS5ReplicaId should suffice for this ticket.
Hello Martin,
Few comments, you are using MOD_DEL 'replicaID' with None value. So this
is going to delete all previous values and it should be equivalent to a
MOD_REPL.
I was thinking you wanted to retrieve the id_value and call MOD_DEL
'replicaID' <current_value>. So that if by the time you fetched the
replicaId, an other replica updated the replicaId, the MOD_DEL/MOD_ADD
would fail and you need a new iteration.
Sorry I didn't know you can MOD_DEL a particular value (I'm LDAP noob
I know). Will fix this.
If replicaId was multi-valued and you want to make it single valued, you
may want to do create a more complex MOD (e.g. (ldap.MOD_DELETE,
'nsDS5ReplicaId', str(value1), (ldap.MOD_DELETE, 'nsDS5ReplicaId',
str(value2)...)
AFAIK ReplicaId is single-valued (looking at the schema right now) so
this shouldn't be problem.
If it is updating successfully do you want to return 'retval' or
'retval+1' ?
If several replicas try to update the replicaId of the master and the
current replicaId is 1000.
Replica1 successfully updates the replicaId and gets 1001 as the new
value.
Replica2 successfully updates the replicaId and gets 1002.
The final value on master will be 1002, but replica1 will assum it is
1001. Is it a problem ?
I studied the code in the master branch and IIUC (and please correct
me if I got this wrong) nsDS5ReplicaId attribute in
'cn=replication,cn=etc,$SUFFIX' represents replicaID of the _next_
replica that will be installed.
So if a replica is installed, it sets the current value of
nsDS5ReplicaId as its replica ID (the function returns 'retval') and
then increments it in 'cn=replication,cn=etc,$SUFFIX' entry ('retval +
1' is written to master) so that the next installed replica fetches
this updated value.
So the case you described should be the expected behavior. To change
it would require different patch IMHO.
Thank for your precious explanations, in fact the value in
'cn=replication,cn=etc,SUFFIX' is the next available replicaId value and
is the centralized mechanism that assign unique replicaID.
The risk was that several replica pick the same value. So yes it is
important that the MOD_DEL specifies the previously read value so that
the test/set will be atomic. If several replicas read the same value,
only the faster one will use it to install the replica.
thanks
thierry
thanks
thierry
--
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code
