Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
> Adrien Futschik wrote:
>> Considering that M1& M3 are on the same server and therefore have
>> exactly the
>> same time, if this was a time related problem, I should'nt get any
>> "CSN too
>> old" messages between M1&M3 and M2&M4, should I ?
>> I have also noticed that when M1 gets a new entry and passes it to
>> when M2&M3&M4 revieve it, they also pass it to M2&M3&M4 ! I
>> why this happends but it look's very much like this is what's happening,
>> because sometimes, M2 would have passed-it to M4, before M4 has actualy
>> revieved the add order from M1.
>> I therefore happend to notice that sometimes, entries send from M1 are
>> revieved in the wrong ordrer by other masters and therefore some
>> entries may
>> be skipped !!!
> Yes, that makes sense. The CSN check assumes changes will always be
> received in the same order they were sent from the provider. Obviously
> in this case this assumption is wrong. You should submit an ITS for this.
> This problem was discussed on the -devel list back in 2007; the code
> ought to be using a spanning tree/routing algorithm to ensure that when
> multiple routes exist for propagating a change, the change is delivered
> exactly once. Unfortunately no one has spent any further time on this
> issue since then.
But the CSN is supposed to guarantee that regardless of the order
servers converge to the same status. In fact, if entries are received
in different order but carry an entryCSN attribute that is newer, the
newer should take place (and be propagated further through
slapo-syncprov if MMR); if identical or older, should be ignored (and
not propagated). If the modification that comes in implies something
odd like a missing parent or so, glue entries should be created, to be
replaced by the right entry as soon as it comes in.
Right, but you're talking about the entryCSN of a replicated entry, and not
the CSN that was sent in the sync cookie. The two don't have to be the same,
particularly if there are a lot of writes active on the provider.
When a consumer accepts an out of order cookie CSN then any other consumers
cascaded off it will receive incomplete data. (The consumer claims to be up to
date as of revision X, but it is in fact missing revision X-1.)
In MMR, assuming
perfect symmetry, we could do something like ignoring entries that come
from a provider with the entryCSN generated by another provider, under
the assumption we will eventually get it from the right provider? Or
better (and symmetrical) do not propagate entries whose CSN was not
generated by ourselves, under the assumption the one that generated the
CSN will propagate it?
That assumes a fully connected star topology. Such a layout won't scale; the
intention is for this to work even with irregular topologies. E.g.
A - B G
| | | \
C - D - E - F - H
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/