Hi William,

Thanks a lot for your reply.

That's correct - replication schedule is not enabled. No - there are definitely changes to replicate - I know, I made the change myself ( I changed the "description" attribute on an account, but it takes up to 15 mins for the change to appear in the 1.3 master. That master replicates to another master and a bunch of other hubs. Those hubs replicate amongst themselves and a bunch of consumers.

The update can take up to 15 mins to make it from the 1.2 master, into the 1.3 master; but once it hits the 1.3 master, it is replicated around the 1.3 cluster within 1 sec.

Only memberOf is disallowed for fractional replication.

Can anyone give me any guidance as to the settings of the "backoff" and other parameters? Any doc links that may be useful?

Thanks a lot, Trev

On 2018-02-18, 3:32 PM, "William Brown" william@blackhats.net.au wrote:

On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 01:49 +0000, Fong, Trevor wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I’ve set up a new 389 DS cluster (389-Directory/1.3.6.1 > B2018.016.1710) and have set up a replication agreement from our old > cluster (389-Directory/1.2.11.15 B2014.300.2010) to a master node in > the new cluster. Problem is that updates in the old cluster take up > to 15 mins to make it into the new cluster. We need it to be near > instantaneous, like it normally is. Any ideas what I can check?

I am assuming you don't have a replication schedule enabled?

In LDAP replication is always "eventual". So a delay isn't harmful.

But there are many things that can influence this. Ludwig is the expert, and I expect he'll comment here.

Only one master may be "replicating" to a server at a time. So if your 1.3 server is replicating with other servers, then your 1.2 server may have to "wait it's turn".

There is a replication 'backoff' timer, that sets how long it tries and scales these attempts too. I'm not sure if 1.2 has this or not though.

Another reason could be there are no changes to be replicated, replication only runs when there is something to do. So your 1.2 server may have no changes, or it could be eliminating the changes with fractional replication.

Finally, it's very noisy but you could consider enabling replication logging to check what's happening.

I hope that helps,

> > Thanks a lot, > Trev > > _________________________________________________ > Trevor Fong > Senior Programmer Analyst > Information Technology | Engage. Envision. Enable. > The University of British Columbia > trevor.fong@ubc.ca | 1-604-827-5247 | it.ubc.ca > > _______________________________________________ > 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.o > rg -- Thanks,

William Brown _______________________________________________ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org

On 02/20/2018 06:53 PM, William Brown wrote:

On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 23:36 +0000, Fong, Trevor wrote:

...

Hi William,

Thanks a lot for your reply.

That's correct - replication schedule is not enabled. No - there are definitely changes to replicate - I know, I made the change myself ( I changed the "description" attribute on an account, but it takes up to 15 mins for the change to appear in the 1.3 master. That master replicates to another master and a bunch of other hubs. Those hubs replicate amongst themselves and a bunch of consumers.

So to be correct in my understanding:

1.2 <-> 1.3 --> [ group of hubs/consumers ]

Yes?

...

The update can take up to 15 mins to make it from the 1.2 master, into the 1.3 master; but once it hits the 1.3 master, it is replicated around the 1.3 cluster within 1 sec.

Only memberOf is disallowed for fractional replication.

Can anyone give me any guidance as to the settings of the "backoff" and other parameters? Any doc links that may be useful?

Mark? You wrote thisn, I can't remember what it's called ....

Before we should adjust the back off min and max values, we need to determine why 1.2.11 is having a hard time updating 1.3.6.  1.3.6 is just receiving updates, so it's 1.2.11 that "seems" to be misbehaving.  So... Is there anything in the errors log on 1.2.11?  It wouldn't hurt to check 1.3.6, but I think 1.2.11 is where we will find our answer.

If there is noting in the log, then turn on replication logging and do your test update.  Once the update hits 1.3.6 turn replication logging off.  Then we can look at the logs and see what happens with your test update.

But as requested here is the backoff min & max info:

http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/replication-retry-settings.html

...

Thanks a lot, Trev

On 2018-02-18, 3:32 PM, "William Brown" william@blackhats.net.au wrote:

On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 01:49 +0000, Fong, Trevor wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>  
> I’ve set up a new 389 DS cluster (389-Directory/1.3.6.1
> B2018.016.1710) and have set up a replication agreement from

our old > cluster (389-Directory/1.2.11.15 B2014.300.2010) to a master node in > the new cluster. Problem is that updates in the old cluster take up > to 15 mins to make it into the new cluster. We need it to be near > instantaneous, like it normally is. Any ideas what I can check?

I am assuming you don't have a replication schedule enabled?

In LDAP replication is always "eventual". So a delay isn't

harmful.

But there are many things that can influence this. Ludwig is the
expert, and I expect he'll comment here. 

Only one master may be "replicating" to a server at a time. So if

your 1.3 server is replicating with other servers, then your 1.2 server may have to "wait it's turn".

There is a replication 'backoff' timer, that sets how long it

tries and scales these attempts too. I'm not sure if 1.2 has this or not though.

Another reason could be there are no changes to be replicated,
replication only runs when there is something to do. So your 1.2

server may have no changes, or it could be eliminating the changes with fractional replication.

Finally, it's very noisy but you could consider enabling

replication logging to check what's happening.

I hope that helps,



>  
> Thanks a lot,
> Trev  
>  
> _________________________________________________
> Trevor Fong
> Senior Programmer Analyst
> Information Technology | Engage. Envision. Enable.
> The University of British Columbia
> trevor.fong@ubc.ca | 1-604-827-5247 | it.ubc.ca
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedorapro

ject.o > rg -- Thanks,

William Brown
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproje

ct.org

---

389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.o rg

On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 18:39 +0000, Fong, Trevor wrote:

Hi Everyone,

Hazzah! I've finally licked the slow (and erratic) replication between our 1.2 -> 1.3 clusters! The problem was that when I was setting up the 1.3 cluster, I'd done it with a view to replace the 1.2 cluster. In making that assumption, I'd set up the cluster in isolation. Everything worked as it was supposed to, but I didn't occur to me to set the masters up with different replica ID's from those in the 1.2 cluster. When I hooked the 1.3 cluster up to the 1.2 cluster, replication into the 1.3 was slow and sometimes it would just break.

Rebuilding the 1.3 cluster with unique replica ID's for all master nodes across both clusters resolved the problem.

Great work to find this. I think we say you need unique rids on all masters in the docs, but we don't enforce it at a programming level.

TBH I really want rids to be allocated by the server tools - there is some things in the works for this, but they are not yet ready.

Better idea is rids should just be guid's, but I don't think Ludwig or I want to rewrite all of replication for this :)

Thanks everyone for their helpful comments. Trev

On 2018-02-20, 4:13 PM, "Mark Reynolds" mreynolds@redhat.com wrote:

On 02/20/2018 06:53 PM, William Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 23:36 +0000, Fong, Trevor wrote:
>> Hi William,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your reply.
>>
>> That's correct - replication schedule is not enabled.
>> No - there are definitely changes to replicate - I know, I

made the >> change myself ( >> I changed the "description" attribute on an account, but it takes up >> to 15 mins for the change to appear in the 1.3 master. >> That master replicates to another master and a bunch of other hubs. >> Those hubs replicate amongst themselves and a bunch of consumers. > So to be correct in my understanding: > > 1.2 <-> 1.3 --> [ group of hubs/consumers ] > > Yes? > >> The update can take up to 15 mins to make it from the 1.2 master, >> into the 1.3 master; but once it hits the 1.3 master, it is >> replicated around the 1.3 cluster within 1 sec. >> >> Only memberOf is disallowed for fractional replication. >> >> Can anyone give me any guidance as to the settings of the "backoff" >> and other parameters? Any doc links that may be useful? > Mark? You wrote thisn, I can't remember what it's called .... Before we should adjust the back off min and max values, we need to determine why 1.2.11 is having a hard time updating 1.3.6. 1.3.6 is just receiving updates, so it's 1.2.11 that "seems" to be misbehaving. So... Is there anything in the errors log on 1.2.11? It wouldn't hurt to check 1.3.6, but I think 1.2.11 is where we will find our answer.

If there is noting in the log, then turn on replication logging

and do your test update. Once the update hits 1.3.6 turn replication logging off. Then we can look at the logs and see what happens with your test update.

But as requested here is the backoff min & max info:

http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/replication-retry-settin

gs.html

>
>> Thanks a lot,
>> Trev
>>
>>
>> On 2018-02-18, 3:32 PM, "William Brown" <william@blackhats.net

.au> >> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 01:49 +0000, Fong, Trevor wrote: >> > Hi Everyone, >> > >> > I’ve set up a new 389 DS cluster (389-Directory/1.3.6.1 >> > B2018.016.1710) and have set up a replication agreement from >> our old >> > cluster (389-Directory/1.2.11.15 B2014.300.2010) to a master >> node in >> > the new cluster. Problem is that updates in the old cluster >> take up >> > to 15 mins to make it into the new cluster. We need it to be >> near >> > instantaneous, like it normally is. Any ideas what I can >> check? >> >> I am assuming you don't have a replication schedule enabled? >> >> In LDAP replication is always "eventual". So a delay isn't >> harmful. >> >> But there are many things that can influence this. Ludwig is the >> expert, and I expect he'll comment here. >> >> Only one master may be "replicating" to a server at a time. So if >> your >> 1.3 server is replicating with other servers, then your 1.2 >> server may >> have to "wait it's turn". >> >> There is a replication 'backoff' timer, that sets how long it >> tries and >> scales these attempts too. I'm not sure if 1.2 has this or not >> though. >> >> Another reason could be there are no changes to be replicated, >> replication only runs when there is something to do. So your 1.2 >> server >> may have no changes, or it could be eliminating the changes with >> fractional replication. >> >> Finally, it's very noisy but you could consider enabling >> replication >> logging to check what's happening. >> >> I hope that helps, >> >> >> >> > >> > Thanks a lot, >> > Trev >> > >> > _________________________________________________ >> > Trevor Fong >> > Senior Programmer Analyst >> > Information Technology | Engage. Envision. Enable. >> > The University of British Columbia >> > trevor.fong@ubc.ca | 1-604-827-5247 | it.ubc.ca >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject. org >> > To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fe dorapro >> ject.o >> > rg >> -- >> Thanks, >> >> William Brown >> _______________________________________________ >> 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.or g >> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedo raproje >> ct.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedorapr oject.o >> rg _______________________________________________ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproje ct.org