[Freeipa-devel] IPA Server upgrade 4.2 design

[Martin Basti]

On 02/03/15 13:12, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> Dne 2.3.2015 v 12:23 Martin Kosek napsal(a):
>> On 03/02/2015 07:49 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Dne 24.2.2015 v 19:10 Martin Basti napsal(a):
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> please read the design page, any objections/suggestions appreciated
>>>> http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Server_Upgrade_Refactoring
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1)
>>>
>>> "
>>> * Merge server update commands into the one command 
>>> (ipa-server-upgrade)
>>> "
>>>
>>> So there is "ipa-server-install" to install the server, 
>>> "ipa-server-install
>>> --uninstall" to uninstall the server and "ipa-server-upgrade" to 
>>> upgrade the
>>> server. Maybe we should bring some consistency here and have one of:
>>>
>>>   a) "ipa-server-install [--install]", "ipa-server-install 
>>> --uninstall",
>>> "ipa-server-install --upgrade"
>>>
>>>   b) "ipa-server-install [install]", "ipa-server-install uninstall",
>>> "ipa-server-install upgrade"
>>>
>>>   c) "ipa-server-install", "ipa-server-uninstall", "ipa-server-upgrade"
>>
>> Long term, I think we want C. Besides other advantages, it will let 
>> us have
>> independent sets of options, based on what you want to do.
>>
>>> 2)
>>>
>>> "
>>> * Prevent to run IPA service, if code version and configuration 
>>> version does
>>> not match
>>>    * ipactl should execute ipa-server-upgrade if needed
>>> "
>>>
>>> There should be no configuration version, configuration update 
>>> should be run
>>> always. It's fast and hence does not need to be optimized like data 
>>> update by
>>> using a monolithic version number, which brings more than a few 
>>> problems on its
>>> own.
>>
>> I do not agree in this section. Why would you like to run it always, 
>> even if it
>> was fast? No run is still faster than fast run.
>
> In the ideal case the installer would be idempotent and upgrade would 
> be re-running the installer and we should aim to do just that. We kind 
> of do that already, but there is a lot of code duplication in 
> installers and ipa-upgradeconfig (I would like to fix that when 
> refactoring installers). IMO it's better to always make 100% sure the 
> configuration is correct rather than to save a second or two.
I doesn't like this idea, if user wants to fix something, the one should 
use --skip-version-check option, and the IPA upgrade will be executed.
What if a service changes in a way, the IPA configuration will not work? 
The user will need to change it manually, but after each restart, 
upgrade will change the value back into IPA required configuration which 
will not work.
Yes, we have upgrade state file, but then the comparing of one value is 
faster then checking each state if was executed.

My personal opinion is, application should not try to fix itself every 
restart.
>
>> In the past, I do not recall
>> ipa-upgradeconfig as being really fast, especially certmonger/Dogtag 
>> related
>> updates were really slow thank to service restarts, etc.
>
> Correct, but I was talking about configuration file updates, not 
> (re)starts, which have to always be done in ipactl anyway.
>
>>
>>> 3)
>>>
>>> "
>>> * Prevent user to use ipa-upgradeconfig and ipa-ldap-updater
>>> "
>>>
>>> Even without arguments? Is ipactl now the only right place to 
>>> trigger manual
>>> update?
Sorry, I will add more details there, if this is not clear.
ipa-upgrateconfig will be removed
ipa-ldap-updater will not be able to do overall update, you will need to 
specify options and update file.
>>>
>>> 4)
>>>
>>> "
>>> Plugins are called from update files, using new directive
>>> update-plugin:<plugin-name>
>>> "
>>>
>>> Why "update-plugin" and not just "plugin"? Do you expect other kinds 
>>> of plugins
>>> to be called from update files in the future? (I certainly don't.)
>>
>> I have no strong feelings on this one, but IMO it is always better to 
>> have some
>> "plan B" if we choose to indeed implement some yet unforeseen plugin 
>> based
>> capability...
>
> I doubt that will happen, but if it does, we can always add 
> "plan-b-plugin" directive.
I do not insist on "update-plugin", I just wanted to be more specific 
which type of plugin is expected there.
>
>>
>>> 5)
>>>
>>> "
>>> New class UpdatePlugin is used for all update plugins.
>>> "
>>>
>>> Just reuse the existing Updater class, no need to reinvent the wheel.
>>>
>>> 6)
>>>
>>> I wonder why configuration update is done after data update and not 
>>> before. I
>>> know it's been like that for a long time, but it seems kind of 
>>> unnatural to me,
>>> especially now when schema update is separate from data update. (Rob?)
We need schema update first, but I haven't found any services which need 
to have updated data (I might be wrong)
>>>
>>> 7)
>>>
>>> "
>>> keep --test option and fix the plugins which do not respect the option
>>> "
>>>
>>> Just a note, I believe this ticket is related:
>>> <https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3448>.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good work overall!
>>>
>>> Honza
>>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Martin Basti