Samba

NAVIGATION
CATEGORIES
REFERRENCE
LINKS
  • SWAT provisioning broken

    5 answers - 409 bytes - related search similar search Add To My Delicious Add To My Stumble Upon Add To My Google Mark Add To My Facebook Add To My Digg Add To My Reddit

    I've been working to try and release Samba4 TP3, and I've been testing
    SWAT, as we don't currently have an automated test for that part of the
    platform.
    I have already fixed some issues, but I'm a little perplexed as to how
    to debug the provision functionality: When I provision, it runs for a
    while, then just displays a blank page to the browser
    Andrew Bartlett
  • No.1 | | 673 bytes | |

    Tue, 2006-10-10 at 15:30 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
    I've been working to try and release Samba4 TP3, and I've been testing
    SWAT, as we don't currently have an automated test for that part of the
    platform.

    I have already fixed some issues, but I'm a little perplexed as to how
    to debug the provision functionality: When I provision, it runs for a
    while, then just displays a blank page to the browser

    This is currently blocking the Samba4 TP3 release.

    As far as I can tell, upping the timeout doesn't help. Neither does
    removing the timeout from the actual running of the EJS engine.

    Andrew Bartlett
  • No.2 | | 1062 bytes | |

    PGP SIGNED MESSAGE
    Hash: SHA1

    Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
    Tue, 2006-10-10 at 15:30 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
    >I've been working to try and release Samba4 TP3, and I've been testing
    >SWAT, as we don't currently have an automated test for that part of the
    >platform.
    >>

    >I have already fixed some issues, but I'm a little perplexed as to how
    >to debug the provision functionality: When I provision, it runs for a
    >while, then just displays a blank page to the browser


    This is currently blocking the Samba4 TP3 release.

    As far as I can tell, upping the timeout doesn't help. Neither does
    removing the timeout from the actual running of the EJS engine.

    then please revert to the old timeout value:-)

    metze

    PGP SIGNATURE
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    i1eVaENenY39EJNKnNFP+GQ=
    =qivF
    PGP SIGNATURE
  • No.3 | | 1238 bytes | |

    Andrew,

    This is currently blocking the Samba4 TP3 release.

    I've fixed the provisioning speed problem.

    Main problem was an interaction between provisioning and existing
    partitions with a partitions module. The provisioning code tries to
    wipe the ldb in a 'friendly' way in case processes are already
    attached to it, by searching for all records and deleting them. This
    wasn't working with partitions, as searches don't cross partition
    boundaries. That caused a second provision after the system was
    already installed to proceed very slowly, as it had to do a lot of
    work re-indexing the (large!) schema on each record.

    The second problem was that objectClass was being indexed. That's a
    bad idea, as every object is a member of 'Top' so you end up with a
    huge and very inefficient index for BJECTCLASS:TP. It is much better
    to search on objectCategory in sam.ldb than it is to search on
    objectClass. I think w2k3 has the same problem (maybe due to similar
    indexing approaches?).

    re-provision now takes 2.4 sec for me, down from 24 sec. New
    provisioning (so no wipe needed) takes 1.5 seconds.

    Cheers, Tridge
  • No.4 | | 1283 bytes | |

    Thu, 2006-10-12 at 18:43 +1000, tridge (AT) samba (DOT) org wrote:
    Andrew,

    This is currently blocking the Samba4 TP3 release.

    I've fixed the provisioning speed problem.

    Main problem was an interaction between provisioning and existing
    partitions with a partitions module. The provisioning code tries to
    wipe the ldb in a 'friendly' way in case processes are already
    attached to it, by searching for all records and deleting them. This
    wasn't working with partitions, as searches don't cross partition
    boundaries. That caused a second provision after the system was
    already installed to proceed very slowly, as it had to do a lot of
    work re-indexing the (large!) schema on each record.

    I'm a bit confused. As the code stood, it did delete the data in the
    partitions. If it did not, then loading the new records would fail.

    Furthermore, the new code deletes the contents of the 'old' partitions,
    but I'm worried: If the new provision is configured not to use LDAP
    (for example), we will now go off and wipe the old LDAP server.

    That is why the old code wiped man DB, initialised the partitions
    records, and then wiped the partitions data.

    Andrew Bartlett
  • No.5 | | 1566 bytes | |

    Thu, 2006-10-12 at 21:18 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
    Thu, 2006-10-12 at 18:43 +1000, tridge (AT) samba (DOT) org wrote:
    Andrew,

    This is currently blocking the Samba4 TP3 release.

    I've fixed the provisioning speed problem.

    Main problem was an interaction between provisioning and existing
    partitions with a partitions module. The provisioning code tries to
    wipe the ldb in a 'friendly' way in case processes are already
    attached to it, by searching for all records and deleting them. This
    wasn't working with partitions, as searches don't cross partition
    boundaries. That caused a second provision after the system was
    already installed to proceed very slowly, as it had to do a lot of
    work re-indexing the (large!) schema on each record.

    I'm a bit confused. As the code stood, it did delete the data in the
    partitions. If it did not, then loading the new records would fail.

    Furthermore, the new code deletes the contents of the 'old' partitions,
    but I'm worried: If the new provision is configured not to use LDAP
    (for example), we will now go off and wipe the old LDAP server.

    That is why the old code wiped man DB, initialised the partitions
    records, and then wiped the partitions data.

    I've changed the code again, to address this. The main issue is that
    the erasure of the partitions occurred *after* the index was added.
    I've pushed the index creation to the very end of the provision.

    Andrew Bartlett

Re: SWAT provisioning broken


max 4000 letters.
Your nickname that display:
In order to stop the spam: 4 + 3 =
QUESTION ON "Samba"

EMSDN.COM