openldap-devel March 2009

openldap-devel@openldap.org

18 participants
28 discussions

Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH for make test
by Gavin Henry 20 Mar '09

20 Mar '09

> Seems to work (at least until test002)... > > Ciao, Michael. On test002 is it just sitting there? I think my build options are wrong for Ubuntu. My build script runs fine on Red Hat/Centos, but sits on test002. Will check my options too. -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1224 279484 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 824887 E ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/ Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in Scotland. Registered number: SC258005. Registered office: 13 Whiteley Well Place, Inverurie, Aberdeenshire, AB51 4FP. Subject to disclaimer at http://www.suretecgroup.com/disclaimer.html

1 0

Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd syncrepl.c
by Howard Chu 19 Mar '09

19 Mar '09

hyc(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/servers/slapd > > Modified Files: > syncrepl.c 1.460 -> 1.461 > > Log Message: > ITS#6011 better fix for connection queue It occurs to me that an even better fix may have been to provide an ldap_pvt_thread_pool_cancel() function to remove submitted tasks that haven't started yet. Any other uses for such a function? -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

2 1

Mirror Mode, MMR and replicas
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 18 Mar '09

18 Mar '09

A number of our clients have requested "fail-over"/redundancy capabilities for the LDAP master, and as I'm currently working on moving our product to use OpenLDAP 2.4, this becomes a distinct possibility. However, I have some questions about the viability/reliability/effectiveness of using multiple masters combined with replicas. I don't see these answered in the Admin Guide. I'll start with replication under MMR. As I understand it, the replicas can only point at a single master. So, if I have a 2 master MMR setup, I assume I would want to point half my replicas at master A and the other half at master B for their updates. This leads to a problem in my mind, in that if master A goes down, then half of my replica pool is now going to remain completely out of sync with the remaining master until master A is recovered. Throwing a Load balancer in front of the two masters, and pointing the replicas at that instead, is not a viable option because the two masters may be getting updates in a different sequence, so if a replica disconnects from the LB and then reconnects, the updates it could get fed from whatever master the LB is pointing at could lead to inconsistencies. Neither of these seem like a good option. I don't see a good solution here to resolve this issue, either, unless the replica could somehow know which master it had been talking to, and drop into refresh mode if it found itself talking to a new master? I'm also not clear on what happens if your replicas are delta-syncrepl based, rather than normal syncrepl, in the LB setup. For Mirror Mode, I would assume you could point the replicas at the LB fronting the two masters, since only one master is ever receiving changes. I also assume delta-syncrepl would be a completely valid option for replication to the replicas, again because only one master is getting the updates, so all updates would be logged in the same sequence on both servers. However, I don't know if this is correct or not, or if there are limitations here I haven't considered. When I was first pondering this on the #openldap-devel channel in IRC, Matt Backes made a comment about delta-syncrepl not working with Mirror Mode. So, basically, I'm at a loss if my understanding things is correct, on how I provide a consistent replicated environment for my customers, while also providing master/master failover. Thanks, Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

2 1

Please test RE24
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 17 Mar '09

17 Mar '09

Please test RE24 as it is being considered for 2.4.16. Thanks! --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

9 35

cancel operation
by manu＠netbsd.org 16 Mar '09

16 Mar '09

Hello I found a bug in slapo-nops: if all modify operations are idempotent, I end up with op->orm_modlist being NULL, and slapd stops there. Here is the current code in slapo-nops that deals with that condition: if ((m = op->orm_modlist) == NULL) { op->o_bd->bd_info = (BackendInfo *)(on->on_info); send_ldap_error(op, rs, LDAP_SUCCESS, ""); return(rs->sr_err); } Obviously, this is not doing what it should. I need to abort the operation while returning LDAP_SUCCESS to the client. How should this be done? -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz manu(a)netbsd.org

3 7

test039: ldap_search_ext_s(cn=Database 1,cn=Databases,cn=Monitor): No such object (32)
by Michael Ströder 13 Mar '09

13 Mar '09

Why are there so many messages like this when running test039-glue-ldap-concurrency in RE24? slapd-read PID=25003: ldap_search_ext_s(cn=Database 1,cn=Databases,cn=Monitor): No such object (32) matched: cn=Databases,cn=Monitor Ciao, Michael.

2 1

Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd/overlays syncprov.c
by Pierangelo Masarati 13 Mar '09

13 Mar '09

hyc(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/servers/slapd/overlays > > Modified Files: > syncprov.c 1.272 -> 1.273 > > Log Message: > More for #6020 Howard, I'm running a set of private tests loosely derived from test050. There is one which basically consisted in simultaneously running 3 concurrency tests (slapd-tester) with 3 MMR (intensive potentially conflicting write load). It didn't use to pass until this last fix. Now all modifications seem to apply and replicate consistently. However, in the end the entryCSN of some entries differ (occasionally, the test just passes). Does this give you some useful indication? I can share the tests (they were meant for inclusion in OpenLDAP, all in all, although they are under development). It may require a while, because they need harmonization. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it ----------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Fax: +39 0382 476497 Email: ando(a)sys-net.it -----------------------------------

2 1

Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd/overlays syncprov.c
by Howard Chu 12 Mar '09

12 Mar '09

hyc(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/servers/slapd/overlays > > Modified Files: > syncprov.c 1.266 -> 1.267 > > Log Message: > ITS#6020 better tracking of where changes came from Note that this is an incompatible change on the wire. Previously the rid and sid that a consumer sends to a provider were returned unchanged in any responses from the provider. (Which was, in retrospect, a mistake... It allowed the syncprov to know the sid of the consumer, but the consumer didn't know the sid of the provider.) Now the current server's serverID is always sent. This allows both sides of the connection to know each other's serverID, which is essential for routing decisions. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: Please test RE24
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 10 Mar '09

10 Mar '09

--On Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:58 PM +0100 Jens Vagelpohl <jens(a)dataflake.org> wrote: >> This should be fixed now, please test further. :) > > Not yet :-( > > testrun tarball attached. Thanks. Please keep replies on the list though. :) --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

Enforce serverID 0 is for single-master only
by Rein Tollevik 09 Mar '09

09 Mar '09

ServerID 0 should be reserved for single-master configurations, ref http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-bugs/200809/msg00131.html. But this is neither enforced in the code, nor mentioned in the doc. as far as I can see. Reserving serverID 0 for the single-master case would make it easier to distinguish between old single-master and new multi-master configuration based on the SID of the CSNs. But the main benefit would be to catch the apparently far too common configuration error of failing to set a correct serverID in multi master configurations. Is it OK if I implement it? This would mean that slapd would refuse to start if syncrepl or syncprov finds a contextCSN value with SID=0 in the database upon startup and there is more than one contextCSN, or if MirrorMode is enabled. Syncrepl should refuse to receive updates to contextCSN values under the same conditions, and tear down the connection (and retry later) if one is seen. Syncprov should also refuse slapd to start if serverID is 0 and MirrorMode is enabled or any contextCSN with non-zero SIDs are found. This would require a non-zero serverID also on pure forwarding servers that never changes anything by them self. But I think this minor drawback is worth it if it allows us to catch the serverID configuration errors. Syncrepl should probably allow serverID 0, so that pure consumers can exist without requiring separate serverID values. Comments? Rein

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-devel March 2009