On 26.05.2016 11:24, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 05/26/2016 11:12 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 05/25/2016 09:31 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
In fact, I am using such small scripts to prepare and run/monitor
If providing a set of scripts and document a procedure is enough I
am fine with this.
thierry bordaz wrote:
On 05/25/2016 08:49 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
thierry bordaz wrote:
Thanks for all the feedbacks. I updated the design accordingly
additional tests results
Several improvements can be done, in particular in DS plugins
retroCL), but for "easy" benefit provisioning will be done with
disabled followed by fixup.
It remains some aspects that are not clear to me:
* For best performance, DS tuning and provisioning/fixup would
preferably be done under 'directory manager'
That means prompting DM password and writing it into
Is that a concern ?
* Fixup requires that we know the filters matching the provisioned
entries. For example :
The set of objectclass could be hardcode or provided in the
provisioning CLI option
What to do if an entry in in the provision file does not
any of those filter ? Should it stop without starting the
* The CLI doing the provisioning could be something like 'ipa
provision <options>' or should it be a separated command e.g.
It depends. There is a migration command now, ipa migrate-ds, that
adds records and is impacted by this. There is also the
looping calls to ipa [user|group|etc]-add.
I agree that migration and bulk load can be linked. If migration
dump/update a set of entries before filling them into a new
could use bulk load.
For set loop of ipa <object>-add, I think they add many others direct
operations (mainly SRCH) before doing the ADD in order to check
coherency. bulk load looks more straightforward.
I just wonder if some (all) of this could be done manually.
Document how to turn off memberof, do the import whatever way is
appropriate, then run the fixup? I'm not sure what you had in mind.
I don't want to think small but do we expect to be importing a slew
of hosts, sudorules, etc? I guess the potential is there but would
it be on the same scale as users? If you focus only on users/groups
does that change the use case at all?
Would it be reasonable to require bulk import to be done on an IPA
master so we can leverage the ldapi socket?
Do you mean using ldapi to reduce network latency or automember or
something else ?
To avoid the DM password issues. ldapi autobinds to DM when the id
Yes I said automember but was thinking to autobind.
That is nice idea to avoid prompting DM password.
In addition, slapi-nis participating to slowing down the
provisioning if it is using ldapi/DM slapi-nis will be offline by
The limitation would be to run the provisioning on IPA master.
During provisioning, membership attribute will be invalid (memberof
not computed). Is it acceptable that IPA master contains invalid
membership for some time ?
Consider provisioning to be at the same level as running
ipa-server-upgrade -- access via 389/636 ports is not allowed, LDAPI is
the only interface enabled which implies there would be no problem if we
set expectations right: provisioning mode is offline.
Yes I agree, provisioning mode is offline.
My concern is about side effects on the rest of the topology if we are
putting IPA master offline (is password update possible on replica ?).
How long it takes until memberof data are recreated using replication?
(IIRC and memberof attributes are not replicated)
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code