< Changes
(→Scope) |
|||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
== Scope == | == Scope == | ||
The change is quite limited in term of development and interface impact | |||
but it impacts a critical component: freeipa. | |||
[1] Impact on software that uses generic LDAP interface without any specific 389-ds features (like configuration tools and monoitoring entries): No interface impact, but there may some some impacts in term of dynamic (i.e: response time, maximum thoughtput). Especially if browsing (i.e VLV) indexes are used on big lists. | |||
[2] Impact on software that explicitly creates 389-ds-base instances (like freeipa) may also have to change the way the database is tuned. (Especially the database maximum size: nsslapd-mdb-max-size) | |||
[3] Impact of software that explicitly uses the backend monitoring LDAP entries:new attributes about lmdb specific data are present. | |||
There are no packages in [3] case and freeipa is the only one in [2] case but there is likely an unknown number of software in [1] case that use the ldap interface without needing a specific LDAP server. | |||
So in summary the main risk is to see some regression in tests. | |||
* Proposal owners: | * Proposal owners: | ||
<!-- What work do the feature owners have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release? Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?--> | <!-- What work do the feature owners have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release? Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?--> | ||
Development impact: | |||
- change of a default value of one parameter of the instance creation utility (dscreate) | |||
- provide better visibility of that parameter in: configuration tools (dscreate and dsconf) | |||
- The above changes have already been done to be able to build the test packages | |||
so it remain to merge the commit in the upstream branch and rebase it to rawhide. | |||
- The larger impact is to determine is there are regressions while running 389ds and freeipa test and fix them. | |||
(with the help the help of freeipa team) | |||
These changes have already been done to be able to build the test packages | |||
so the only impact is to merge the commit in the upstream branch and rebase it to rawhide. | |||
The larger impact is to determine is there are regressions while running freeipa test and fix them. | |||
(with the help the help of freeipa teams) | |||
* Other developers: <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | * Other developers: <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
The freeipa team is involved. To help us diagnose the potential freeipa test regressions. | |||
Other Q/E teams may also be involved to test that there is no regression. | |||
* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issues #Releng issue number] <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | * Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issues #Releng issue number] <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
<!-- Does this feature require coordination with release engineering (e.g. changes to installer image generation or update package delivery)? Is a mass rebuild required? include a link to the releng issue. | <!-- Does this feature require coordination with release engineering (e.g. changes to installer image generation or update package delivery)? Is a mass rebuild required? include a link to the releng issue. | ||
The issue is required to be filed prior to feature submission, to ensure that someone is on board to do any process development work and testing and that all changes make it into the pipeline; a bullet point in a change is not sufficient communication --> | The issue is required to be filed prior to feature submission, to ensure that someone is on board to do any process development work and testing and that all changes make it into the pipeline; a bullet point in a change is not sufficient communication --> | ||
N/A (not needed for this Change): No strong coordination is needed as only a single group of package is directly impacted. | |||
* Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
Revision as of 15:42, 8 November 2023
389_Directory_Server_30
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
Summary
389-ds-base upgrade from version 2.4.4 to the latest upstream version 3.0.0 in Fedora. Newly created instances now are using LDMB database by default instead of BerkeleyDB.
Owner
- Name: 389ds Group
- Email: 389-devel (at) lists (dot) fedoraproject (dot) org
Primary contact:
- Name: Pierre Rogier
- Email: progier (at) redhat (dot) com
Current status
- Targeted release: Fedora Linux 40
- Last updated: 2023-11-08
- [<will be assigned by the Wrangler> devel thread]
- FESCo issue: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
- Tracker bug: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
- Release notes tracker: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
Detailed Description
Since Fedora 36 (389-ds-base 2.1.0) The 389 ldap directory server supports two kinds of underlying database:
- Berkeley Database (bdb) - Lightning Memory-Mapped Database Manager (lmdb)
Newly created instances are still created with bdb by default while libdb is flagged as [deprecated since Fedora 33](Changes/Libdb deprecated - Fedora Project Wiki), this change is about to create lmdb instances by default
Feedback
No feedback yet.
Benefit to Fedora
A step on a way to remove a deprecated piece of software no more supported by upstream community. (See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Libdb_deprecated)
Scope
The change is quite limited in term of development and interface impact but it impacts a critical component: freeipa.
[1] Impact on software that uses generic LDAP interface without any specific 389-ds features (like configuration tools and monoitoring entries): No interface impact, but there may some some impacts in term of dynamic (i.e: response time, maximum thoughtput). Especially if browsing (i.e VLV) indexes are used on big lists.
[2] Impact on software that explicitly creates 389-ds-base instances (like freeipa) may also have to change the way the database is tuned. (Especially the database maximum size: nsslapd-mdb-max-size)
[3] Impact of software that explicitly uses the backend monitoring LDAP entries:new attributes about lmdb specific data are present.
There are no packages in [3] case and freeipa is the only one in [2] case but there is likely an unknown number of software in [1] case that use the ldap interface without needing a specific LDAP server.
So in summary the main risk is to see some regression in tests.
- Proposal owners:
Development impact: - change of a default value of one parameter of the instance creation utility (dscreate) - provide better visibility of that parameter in: configuration tools (dscreate and dsconf) - The above changes have already been done to be able to build the test packages so it remain to merge the commit in the upstream branch and rebase it to rawhide. - The larger impact is to determine is there are regressions while running 389ds and freeipa test and fix them. (with the help the help of freeipa team)
These changes have already been done to be able to build the test packages so the only impact is to merge the commit in the upstream branch and rebase it to rawhide. The larger impact is to determine is there are regressions while running freeipa test and fix them. (with the help the help of freeipa teams)
- Other developers:
The freeipa team is involved. To help us diagnose the potential freeipa test regressions.
Other Q/E teams may also be involved to test that there is no regression.
- Release engineering: #Releng issue number
N/A (not needed for this Change): No strong coordination is needed as only a single group of package is directly impacted.
- Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change)
- Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
- Alignment with Community Initiatives:
Upgrade/compatibility impact
No impact on upgrade because existing instances still use the previously installed backend interface.
There should not have any compatibility issue (bug excepted) with the ldap requests but performances may be impacted.
There may be issue with application that explicitly: - configures 389 directory server instances (like freeipa) because the set of configuration attribute for the backend depends of the underlying database implementation.
The unused parameter are ignored so it should not impact the compatibility But there is a risk for the new parameters: The "20 Gb" default value for the lmdb database maximum size may not be large enough for the application need.
- monitor 389 directory server backends because the the set of attributes in the monitoring entries also depends of the underlying database implementation. More details about these points are described in [389 Directory Server FAQ - BerkeleyDB backend deprecation](https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/FAQ/Berkeley-DB-deprecation.html)
How To Test
a COPR project https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/389ds/389-ds-base-freeipa-tests/
contains the build that can be tested ( F37, F38, F39, rawhide on x86_64 and s390x ) So you can install them by using:
sudo dnf copr enable -y @389ds/389-ds-base-freeipa-tests sudo dnf install 389-ds-base-3.0.0
Then you can create new directory server instances and use them.
User Experience
Prepare the removal of an obsolete piece of software which is no more supported by upstream community and provides more visibility to the replacement.
Dependencies
All the dependent packages are owned by 389ds and freeipa teams:
dnf repoquery --whatrequires 389-ds-base --recursive
| Package | Owner | Tests | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 389-ds-base-snmp | 389ds | - | cockpit-389-ds | 389ds | Tested by 389ds CI test |
| freeipa-fas | freeipa | Tested by freeipa CI test | |||
| freeipa-healthcheck | freeipa | Tested by freeipa CI test | |||
| freeipa-server | freeipa | Tested by freeipa CI test | |||
| freeipa-server-dns | freeipa | Tested by freeipa CI test | |||
| freeipa-server-trust-ad | freeipa | Tested by freeipa CI test | |||
| migrationtools | 389ds | Not impacted by the change | |||
| slapi-nis | freeipa | Tested by freeipa CI test |
Contingency Plan
- Contingency mechanism: (What to do? Who will do it?) N/A (not a System Wide Change)
Contingency mechanism: - Revert the default backend implementation to Berkeley Database - if libdb-5.3/libdb-devel are no more delivered: build it locally and link it as a static libraries. (It will probably be done anyway to handle the db migration)
Contingency deadline: Fedora 40 branching from Rawhide Blocks release? No
- Contingency deadline: The beta freeze (2024-02-20)
- Blocks release? No
Documentation
389 Directory Server FAQ - BerkeleyDB backend deprecation: https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/FAQ/Berkeley-DB-deprecation.html
Release Notes
Need to add write release notes for 3.0.0 in https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/releases/release-notes.html as usual for 389ds.