On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 15:29 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote:
> first of all - snippet moved from the end:
> > I think we need to try to be more consistent than what we are now. There
> > may always be minor races, but the current races are too big to pass on
> > IMHO.
> I definitely agree. Current state = completely broken zone transfer.
> Rest is in-line.
> On 04/17/2012 06:13 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 17:49 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> there is IPA ticket #2554 "DNS zone serial number is not updated" ,
> >> which is required by RFE "Support zone transfers in bind-dyndb-ldap" .
> >> I think we need to discuss next steps with this issue:
> >> Basic support for zone transfers is already done in bind-dyndb-ldap. We
> >> need second part - correct behaviour during SOA serial number update.
> >> Bind-dyndb-ldap plugin handles dynamic update in correct way (each
> >> update increment serial #), so biggest problem lays in IPA for now.
> >> Modifying SOA serial number can be pretty hard, because of DS
> >> replication. There are potential race conditions, if records are
> >> modified/added/deleted on two or more places, replication takes some
> >> time (because of network connection latency/problem) and zone transfer
> >> is started in meanwhile.
> >> Question is: How consistent we want to be?
> > Enough, what we want to do is stop updating the SOA from bind-dyndb-ldap
> > and instead update it in a DS plugin. That's because a DS plugin is the
> > only thing that can see entries coming in from multiple servers.
> > If you update the SOA from bind-dyndb-ldap you can potentially set it
> > back in time because last write win in DS.
> > This will require a persistent sarch so bind-dyndb-ldap can be updated
> > with the last SOA serial number, or bind-dyndb-ldap must not cache it
> > and always try to fetch it from ldap.
> Bind-dyndb-ldap has users with OpenLDAP. I googled a bit and OpenLDAP should
> support Netscape SLAPI , but I don't know how hard is to code
> interoperable plugin.
> Accidentally I found existing SLAPI plugin for "concurrent" BIND-LDAP backend
> project .
I don't think we need to provide plugins for other platforms, we just
need an optiono in bind-dyndb-ldap to tell it to assume the SOA is being
handled by the LDAP server.
For servers that do not have a suitable plugin bind-dyndb-ldap will keep
working as it does now. In those cases I would suggest people to use a
single master, but up to the integrator of the other solution.
> Can we think for a while about another ways? I would like to find some (even
> sub-optimal) solution without DS plugin, if it's possible and comparable hard
> to code.
Yes, as I said you may still do something with a persistent search, but
I do not know if persistent searches are available in OpenLDAP either.
However with a persistent search you would see entries coming in in
"real time" even replicated ones from other replicas, so you could
always issue a SOA serial update. Of course you still need to check for
SOA serial updates from other DNS master servers where another
bind-dyndb-ldap plugin is running.
You have N servers potentially updating the serial at the same time. As
long as you do not update the serial just because the serial was itself
updated you are just going to eat one or more serial numbers off.
We also do not need to make it a requirement to have the serial updated
atomically. If 2 servers both update the number to the same value it is
ok because they will basically be both in sync in terms of hosted
Otherwise one of the servers will update the serial again as soon as
other entries are received.
If this happens, it is possible that on one of the masters the serial
will be updated twice even though no other change was performed on the
entry-set. That is not a big deal though, at most it will cause a
useless zone transfer, but zone transfer should already be somewhat rate
limited anyway, because our zones do change frequently due to DNS
updates from clients.
> >> Can we accept these
> >> absolutely improbable race conditions? It will be probably corrected by
> >> next SOA update = by (any) next record change. It won't affect normal
> >> operations, only zone transfers.
> > Yes and No, the problem is that if 2 servers update the SOA
> > independently you may have the serial go backwards on replication. See
> > above.
> >> (IMHO we should consider DNS "nature": In general is not strictly
> >> consistent, because of massive caching at every level.)
> > True, but the serial is normally considered monotonically increasing.
> I agree. How DS will handle collisions? When same attribute is modified
> independently at two places? It's simply overwritten by one of values? I
> find information about this at directory.fedoraproject.org.
Last update wins.
> (Side question: It's a real big problem? If it's result of very improbable
> race condition? It will broke zone transfer, but next zone update will
> this. As result of this failure last change is not transferred to slave DNS
> servers, before another zone update takes place.)
If there are no new updates the next zone transfer will see again a
serial in the past and not update at all. So, yeah I think it is a big
deal if the SOA goes backwards.
> >> If it's acceptable, we can suppress explicit SOA serial number value in
> >> LDAP and derive actual value from latest modifyTimestamp value from all
> >> objects in cn=dns subtree. This approach saves some hooks in IPA's LDAP
> >> update code and will save problems with manual modifications.
> > It will cause a big search though. It also will not take in account when
> If we use persistent search it's not a problem. Persistent search dumps whole
> DB to RBT in BIND's memory and only changes are transferred after this
You still need to search the whole cache and save additional data. (I
sure hope you do not keep in memory the whole ldap object but a parsed
version of it, if you keep the whole LDAP object I think we just found
another place for enhancement. Wasting all that memory is not a good
> We can compute maximal modifyTimestamp from all idnsRecord objects during
> initial query. Any change later in time will add only single attribute to
> transfer + max(currvalue, newvalue) operation. This way (with psearch) has
> reasonably small overhead, I think.
The problem is that max(currvalue, newvalue) is not useful.
This is the scenario:
time 1: server A receives updates
time 2: server B receives updates
time 3: bind-dyndb-ldap B computes new SOA
time 4: server A sends its updates to server B
time 5: bind-dyndb-ldap B see that the max timestamp has not changed
(all new entries are older than 'time 2' as they were generated at time
This is with perfectly synchronized clocks. If A has a clock slightly in
the past compared to B then you could eve swap time 1 and 2 in absolute
time and still get entries "in the past" at point 4.
This is why using the modifyTimestamp is not workable in this case.
> > there are changes replicated from another replica that are "backdated"
> > relative to the last modifyTimestamp.
> If we maintain max(modifyTimestamp) value whole time, new backdated values
> will not backdate SOA, because max(modifyTimestamp) can't move back.
no the problem is not backdating the SOA serial, the problem is *not*
updating it when new entris become available because they were "in the
past". So if no other changes are made to DNS a zone transfer may not
kick at all indefinitely even though the master has new/changed entries.
This would cause a long term de-synchronization of the slaves I think is
not really acceptable.
> It's not correct behaviour also, I know. But again: It's result of improbable
> race condition and next zone update will correct this situation.
It is not improbable at all, I think it would be a pretty common
situation when you have different masters updating the same zone (common
on the main zone), see explanation above.
> > Also using modifyTimestamp would needlessly increment the SOA if there
> > are changes to the entries that are not relevant to DNS (like admins
> > changing ACIs, or other actions like that).
> I think it's not a problem. Only consequence is unnecessary zone transfer.
> often admin changes ACI?
Not often, so I concede the point.
> If we want to save this overhead, we can count max(modifyTimestamp) only for
> idnsRecord objects (and only for known attributes) - but I think it's not
I was already expecting that, but you cannot distinguish modifyTimestamp
per attribute, only per object, so if modifyTimestamp is changed for an
attribute you do not care about you still have to count it.
> There are still problems to solve without DS plugin (specifically
> mapping/updating NN part from YYYYMMDDNN), but: Sounds this reasonable?
Well I am not sure we need to use a YYYYMMDDNN convention to start with.
I expect with DYNDNS updates that a 2 digit NN will never be enough,
plus it is never updated by a human so we do not need to keep it
readable. But I do not care eiither way, as long as the serial can
handle thousands of updates per day I am fine (if this is an issue we
need to understand how to update the serial in time intervals).
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
Freeipa-devel mailing list