Hash: SHA1

cc'ing group list back in for other opinions.

On 05/22/2012 03:38 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
> On 05/22/2012 08:36 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>> On 05/22/2012 10:10 AM, Rich Megginson wrote:
>>> On 05/22/2012 04:38 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>>>> On 05/22/2012 04:28 AM, Dale Macartney wrote:
>>>>> Dmitri, Rob
>>>>> I thought I might reply to you both directly, just in case others on
>>>>> the list vent frustrations on the ongoing discussion of this topic.
>>>>> I've been reading through the archives of the list for hot backup
>>>>> solutions, and this email thread really stood out. I am seeing a
>>>>> general consensus of backing up everything, and in some cases, even
>>>>> backing up a virtualized guest disk image to maintain a backup. I
>>>>> personally feel this is the wrong message people should be getting
>>>>> into their heads about a DR solution for restoring IPA.
>>>>> I was wondering, and feel free to correct me here if you see fit, if
>>>>> it would be beneficial to have a similar method of backing up IPA (and
>>>>> replicas), in a similar fashion to how Microsoft recommend their
>>>>> Domain Controllers to be backed up. A "system state backup" of sorts.
>>>>> Where a backup is performed on all Domain Controllers (or in our case,
>>>>> IPA servers). Basically, resulting in an individual restore point for
>>>>> each replica. From here, you have an entire backup, which will only
>>>>> ever bee used for that ONE server it was intended for. Essentially a
>>>>> complete dump and load approach.
>>>>> It is best practice in a Windows environment to perform these backups
>>>>> several times a week in small non-changing environments. So my
>>>>> thinking is, if we have a "daily backup" solution which could be used
>>>>> to run on each replica or master, then this should suffice in an
>>>>> adequate procedure to give to customers.
>>>>> In short, I'm more than happy to put my hand up on this one to help
>>>>> free up your time. I can easily take this on with a few of the lads
>>>>> here in the UK and get some customer feed back from mates within my
>>>>> former employment who are quite well versed in the realms of IPA.
>>>>> Would this be of any help to you? Do you see this as the right
>>>>> direction to take on this matter? I'd love to hear your thoughts
>>>>> Rhys, Gav, cc'ing you in on this one. I'd like to throw this onto our
>>>>> running list of IPA integration projects.
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Dale
>>>> First of all thank you for the offer!
>>>> It seems that there are two main use cases:
>>>> 1) Catastrophic failure
>>>> 2) Data deletion
>>>> In the case of the catastrophic failure you want to have all
>>>> data+configuration+keys backed up to be able to effectively start over
>>>> and re-install/recover from the backup.
could we not have the ability of restoring only specific data? Like most
backup solutions?

for example
having a utility where you can run "ipa backup all" could cover the
data+config+keys, however depending on a catastrophic failure or data
deletion, maybe have something along the lines of "ipa restore data" if
we simply wanted to restore the data element of the backup.

Thoughts? IMO, i think we should look for a KISS method which is
specific to the application stack at hand.
>>>> In this case IMO having a VM approach like the one JR uses is a viable
>>>> solution. Rob, Simo, Rich do you agree?
>>> We would need to test this to make sure VM snapshots don't cause
>>> problems with replication and/or kerberos since those are sensitive to
>>> time. All of the testing we have ever done for RHDS/389 for
>>> backup/restore is based on simple database binary and ldif backups.
>>> We've never had to take into account restoring to a filesystem time in
>>> the past or a VM state that is in the past.
>> Why in the past?
>> If you take snapshots regularly say every other day when you restart a
>> VM it should act as if the connection to it was lost for couple days.
> Ok. Maybe it will work just fine. All I'm saying is that we better test
this well with a number of replication scenarios.
Should we really be considering snapshots as an "IPA" method of
recovery? That puts a prerequisite on the customer using either SAN
snapshotting or virtualization technologies.
If I use RHEV 2.2 as an example here, RHEV was not adopted by many
customers because there was a prerequisite of Windows. If we have a
reliance on other technologies for such key recovery principles this
will undoubtedly (possibly more in the short than long term) have a
knock on effect of adoption.

Yes it might work, but should we be sending this message across? In the
short term, if it works then great, however I think this should give us
insight into a more robust method in the future.

>> I do not see how the Kerberos and time are related here.
>>>> In the case of data deletion we one needs to keep LDAP data around and
>>>> not necessarily all the configuration and keys. And not even all the
>>>> data needs to be backed up.
>>>> So there should probably be two different procedures.
>>>> I also think that creating a VM snapshot and recovering from such
>>>> snapshot can be automated. We should probably provide some kind of
>>>> script or command to do so.
>>>> We stayed a bit shy from either procedure because the set of the config
>>>> files IPA touches changes all the time and until we get it stable it
>>>> would be hard to commit to a flawless backup. We feel we will miss
>>>> something and will get bugs that we will have to address. Yeah in the
>>>> current state there is a bit of hand-waving... May be it is time to
>>>> identify the set of of all things we touch on the system and try to have
>>>> a more solid set of procedures and recommendations and bite the bullet
>>>> if we miss something.
>>>> Now back to your offer, first of all which of the two use cases you
>>>> think you would be able to contribute to?
>>>> Do you think it makes sense to script something for either of the cases?
>>>> What? Would you be able to help?
>>>> JR offered help too. He is waiting for the blessing to describe a VM
>>>> based approach. So first we should decide if it is the right way to go.
>>>> For the first case IMO it is but I want other opinions.
>>>> And one more thing. May be we should continue this thread on the list so
>>>> please reply there.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


Attachment: 0xB5B41FAA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Attachment: 0xB5B41FAA.asc.sig
Description: PGP signature

Freeipa-users mailing list

Reply via email to