8:36 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02/28/2012 04:26 PM, ondrej.kuznik(a)acision.com wrote:
I have prepared some patches to back-ldap (and one to back-monitor)
that expose
operation and connection monitoring information from a running back-ldap
database and I would like to see this or similar functionality included in the
OpenLDAP codebase.
The url above contains a patchset against HEAD for review.
The following things are yet to be resolved:
- there is no monitoring of completed operations yet, only operations initiated
against the remote database(s).
- the binds performed by the ldap_back_default_rebind function are not counted
- slapo-chain has not been tested yet
After playing with slapo-chain, looks like the monitoring support has
been a noop and properly enabling it might take a more intrusive patch
than the one included above.
- test suite integration: back-ldap looks excluded from the test
suite
Looking further at the test suite, enabling back-ldap testing might also
be a little more effort, maybe out of scope of such an ITS.
- better connection handling (connections should have stable
identifiers)
So far, I have had no revelation on how to proceed on this one.
Pierangelo and others, could some of you take a look at the proposed
changes and comment on what else should be improved or fixed?
- --
Ondrej Kuznik
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk9XjowACgkQ9GWxeeH+cXvwgwCgo4SGGBhVCYLcx6wcRI3kkXDW
uDkAnROsOqTPeEDVL/tDXnva1sX9yM1Y
=zSS9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It
may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal
privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If
you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you for understanding.
11:27 a.m.
New subject: (ITS#7182) back-ldap monitoring improvements
I gave a quick look to your submission, but I really have no opportunity
to seriously consider it so I'm afraid I need to give up, sorry.
p.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02/28/2012 04:26 PM, ondrej.kuznik(a)acision.com wrote:
> I have prepared some patches to back-ldap (and one to back-monitor) that
> expose
> operation and connection monitoring information from a running back-ldap
> database and I would like to see this or similar functionality included
> in the
> OpenLDAP codebase.
>
> The url above contains a patchset against HEAD for review.
>
> The following things are yet to be resolved:
> - there is no monitoring of completed operations yet, only operations
> initiated
> against the remote database(s).
> - the binds performed by the ldap_back_default_rebind function are not
> counted
> - slapo-chain has not been tested yet
After playing with slapo-chain, looks like the monitoring support has
been a noop and properly enabling it might take a more intrusive patch
than the one included above.
> - test suite integration: back-ldap looks excluded from the test suite
Looking further at the test suite, enabling back-ldap testing might also
be a little more effort, maybe out of scope of such an ITS.
> - better connection handling (connections should have stable
> identifiers)
So far, I have had no revelation on how to proceed on this one.
Pierangelo and others, could some of you take a look at the proposed
changes and comment on what else should be improved or fixed?
- --
Ondrej Kuznik
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk9XjowACgkQ9GWxeeH+cXvwgwCgo4SGGBhVCYLcx6wcRI3kkXDW
uDkAnROsOqTPeEDVL/tDXnva1sX9yM1Y
=zSS9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an
intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you for
understanding.
2:25 a.m.
New subject: (ITS#7182) back-ldap monitoring improvements
Ondrej Kuznik wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02/28/2012 04:26 PM, ondrej.kuznik(a)acision.com wrote:
> I have prepared some patches to back-ldap (and one to back-monitor) that expose
> operation and connection monitoring information from a running back-ldap
> database and I would like to see this or similar functionality included in the
> OpenLDAP codebase.
>
> The url above contains a patchset against HEAD for review.
>
> The following things are yet to be resolved:
> - there is no monitoring of completed operations yet, only operations initiated
> against the remote database(s).
> - the binds performed by the ldap_back_default_rebind function are not counted
> - slapo-chain has not been tested yet
After playing with slapo-chain, looks like the monitoring support has
been a noop and properly enabling it might take a more intrusive patch
than the one included above.
> - test suite integration: back-ldap looks excluded from the test
suite
Looking further at the test suite, enabling back-ldap testing might also
be a little more effort, maybe out of scope of such an ITS.
> - better connection handling (connections should have stable identifiers)
So far, I have had no revelation on how to proceed on this one.
What do you intend to do with such a connection identifier? If it's merely for
monitor purposes, just use a simple counter. Obviously nothing in back-ldap
currently needs such a thing, so I can't imagine that it would be used for
anything else. You can increment the counter in getconn, when the connection
is inserted into the tree (under the mutex).
Your patch 4 seems to be quite invasive already. How will the new monitor
output compare to the existing output? Will this break any scripts that were
using the old monitor entries?
You seem to have no-op'd out the monitor_db_close() cleanups. It would be a
good idea to do all of the proper unregister/cleanup here.
Pierangelo and others, could some of you take a look at the proposed
changes and comment on what else should be improved or fixed?
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
8:13 a.m.
New subject: (ITS#7182) back-ldap monitoring improvements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/27/2012 11:25 AM, Howard Chu wrote:
Ondrej Kuznik wrote:
>> - better connection handling (connections should have stable identifiers)
>
> So far, I have had no revelation on how to proceed on this one.
What do you intend to do with such a connection identifier? If it's merely for
monitor purposes, just use a simple counter. Obviously nothing in back-ldap
currently needs such a thing, so I can't imagine that it would be used for
anything else. You can increment the counter in getconn, when the connection
is inserted into the tree (under the mutex).
It is merely for monitoring purposes, such that it is always obvious
which entry corresponds to which connection over repeated searches in
cn=monitor.
Your patch 4 seems to be quite invasive already. How will the new
monitor
output compare to the existing output? Will this break any scripts that were
using the old monitor entries?
Thanks for the input, when comparing the data before submission briefly,
I missed the difference that olmDbURIList and labeledURI are in
"cn=Connections,cn=database #,..." in HEAD while after my patching they
ended up in the "cn=database #,..." monitor entry (where they make more
sense but could indeed make for an incompatible change). I will update
this in the next patchset. There should be no other compatibility issues
as there was no other useful information and slapo-chain seems not to
actually enable monitoring of its backends (fixing that would make for
another change I do not have ready).
You seem to have no-op'd out the monitor_db_close() cleanups. It
would be a
good idea to do all of the proper unregister/cleanup here.
Since I dropped the ad-hoc entry creation, there are now only the
monitor subsystems registered, for which there currently is no
unregister callback. During slapd shutdown back-monitor handles the
destruction and callbacks itself, the only time the no-oping could hurt
is when SLAPD_CONFIG_DELETE is enabled (as mentioned in the comment).
I can certainly add that callback to back-monitor bi->extra and use it,
however such change would either be a little naive or require changing
the actual type of the monitor_subsys variable to an AVL or an
LDAP_LIST_*. I did not feel confident mucking with this part of
back-monitor myself and judged that confining the intrusive changes only
to back-ldap/monitor.c would make the patchset's chances of inclusion
somewhat higher.
As you are the person to make the call, what is your opinion on this?
Shall I update the patch to do proper subsystem deregistration (and
prepare another that introduces such a thing to back-monitor), leave
that part as it is or do something completely different?
- --
Ondrej Kuznik
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk9zKp4ACgkQ9GWxeeH+cXsTEgCeLmBRsixan4iDngXPRsIFHuAt
Ka0AoJyRSGpVzBzdPC4OJiH14lq1q2j3
=YBtx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It
may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal
privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If
you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you for understanding.
8:35 a.m.
New subject: (ITS#7182) back-ldap monitoring improvements
Ondrej Kuznik wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/27/2012 11:25 AM, Howard Chu wrote:
> Your patch 4 seems to be quite invasive already. How will the new monitor
> output compare to the existing output? Will this break any scripts that were
> using the old monitor entries?
Thanks for the input, when comparing the data before submission briefly,
I missed the difference that olmDbURIList and labeledURI are in
"cn=Connections,cn=database #,..." in HEAD while after my patching they
ended up in the "cn=database #,..." monitor entry (where they make more
sense but could indeed make for an incompatible change). I will update
this in the next patchset. There should be no other compatibility issues
as there was no other useful information and slapo-chain seems not to
actually enable monitoring of its backends (fixing that would make for
another change I do not have ready).
OK. I'm not too concerned with slapo-chain, we can note that as a future
enhancement as well.
> You seem to have no-op'd out the monitor_db_close() cleanups.
It would be a
> good idea to do all of the proper unregister/cleanup here.
Since I dropped the ad-hoc entry creation, there are now only the
monitor subsystems registered, for which there currently is no
unregister callback. During slapd shutdown back-monitor handles the
destruction and callbacks itself, the only time the no-oping could hurt
is when SLAPD_CONFIG_DELETE is enabled (as mentioned in the comment).
I can certainly add that callback to back-monitor bi->extra and use it,
however such change would either be a little naive or require changing
the actual type of the monitor_subsys variable to an AVL or an
LDAP_LIST_*. I did not feel confident mucking with this part of
back-monitor myself and judged that confining the intrusive changes only
to back-ldap/monitor.c would make the patchset's chances of inclusion
somewhat higher.
As you are the person to make the call, what is your opinion on this?
Shall I update the patch to do proper subsystem deregistration (and
prepare another that introduces such a thing to back-monitor), leave
that part as it is or do something completely different?
OK, it sounds fine to ignore this for now.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
4201
days inactive
4222
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Howard Chu -
masaratiļ¼ aero.polimi.it -
Ondrej Kuznik