From Fedora Project Wiki
< Changes
(add tracker bug and release notes ticket) |
|||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= | = 389_Directory_Server_3.0.0 <!-- The name of your change proposal --> = | ||
== Summary == | == Summary == | ||
| Line 15: | Line 13: | ||
This should link to your home wiki page so we know who you are. | This should link to your home wiki page so we know who you are. | ||
--> | --> | ||
* Name: | * Name: 389 Directory Server Development Team | ||
<!-- Include you email address that you can be reached should people want to contact you about helping with your change, status is requested, or technical issues need to be resolved. If the change proposal is owned by a SIG, please also add a primary contact person. --> | <!-- Include you email address that you can be reached should people want to contact you about helping with your change, status is requested, or technical issues need to be resolved. If the change proposal is owned by a SIG, please also add a primary contact person. --> | ||
* Email: 389-devel (at) lists (dot) fedoraproject (dot) org | * Email: 389-devel (at) lists (dot) fedoraproject (dot) org | ||
| Line 27: | Line 25: | ||
== Current status == | == Current status == | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:ChangeAcceptedF40]] | ||
<!-- When your change proposal page is completed and ready for review and announcement --> | <!-- When your change proposal page is completed and ready for review and announcement --> | ||
<!-- remove Category:ChangePageIncomplete and change it to Category:ChangeReadyForWrangler --> | <!-- remove Category:ChangePageIncomplete and change it to Category:ChangeReadyForWrangler --> | ||
| Line 44: | Line 42: | ||
ON_QA -> change is fully code complete | ON_QA -> change is fully code complete | ||
--> | --> | ||
* [ | * [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RANL3JMS574QZLM2OJHFGUH62QXOXXZJ/ Announced] | ||
* FESCo issue: | * [https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-proposal-389-directory-server-3-0-0-system-wide/97373 Discussion thread] | ||
* Tracker bug: | * FESCo issue: [https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3120 #3120] | ||
* Release notes tracker: | * Tracker bug: [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254788 #2254788] | ||
* Release notes tracker: [https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/release-notes/issue/1063 #1063] | |||
== Detailed Description == | == Detailed Description == | ||
<!-- Expand on the summary, if appropriate. A couple sentences suffices to explain the goal, but the more details you can provide the better. --> | <!-- Expand on the summary, if appropriate. A couple sentences suffices to explain the goal, but the more details you can provide the better. --> | ||
Since Fedora 36 (389-ds-base 2.1.0) | Since Fedora 36 (389-ds-base 2.1.0), the 389 Directory Server supports two kinds of underlying database: | ||
* Berkeley Database (BDB) | |||
* Lightning Memory-Mapped Database Manager (LMDB) | |||
Newly created instances are still created with | Newly created instances are still created with BDB by default while libdb is flagged as [[Changes/Libdb deprecated - Fedora Project Wiki|deprecated since Fedora 33]], this change is about to create instances with LMDB by default. | ||
| Line 65: | Line 64: | ||
== Benefit to Fedora == | == Benefit to Fedora == | ||
A step on | A step on the way to remove a deprecated piece of software no longer supported by the upstream community. | ||
(See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Libdb_deprecated) | (See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Libdb_deprecated) | ||
== Scope == | |||
The change is quite limited in terms of development and interface impact, but it impacts a critical component: FreeIPA. | |||
[1] Impact on software that uses generic LDAP interface without any specific 389DS features (like configuration tools and monitoring entries): | |||
No interface impact, but there may be some impact in terms of dynamic (i.e: response time, maximum throughput). Especially if browsing (i.e VLV) indexes are used on big lists. | |||
[2] Impact on software that explicitly creates 389DS 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 on software that explicitly uses 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 a 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 the remaining work is to merge the commit in the upstream branch and rebase it to rawhide. | |||
The larger impact is to determine if there are any regressions while running 389DS and FreeIPA tests and fix them (with the help of the FreeIPA team). | |||
* Other developers: <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | * Other developers: <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
The FreeIPA team is involved to help us diagnose any potential FreeIPA test regressions. | |||
Other QA teams may also be involved to test that there are no regressions. | |||
* 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 --> | ||
| Line 106: | Line 117: | ||
<!-- What happens to systems that have had a previous versions of Fedora installed and are updated to the version containing this change? Will anything require manual configuration or data migration? Will any existing functionality be no longer supported? --> | <!-- What happens to systems that have had a previous versions of Fedora installed and are updated to the version containing this change? Will anything require manual configuration or data migration? Will any existing functionality be no longer supported? --> | ||
No impact on upgrade because existing instances still use the previously installed | No impact on upgrade because existing instances still use the previously installed backend interface. | ||
There should not be any compatibility issues (bugs excepted) with the LDAP requests, but performance may be impacted. | |||
There may be issues with applications that explicitly: | |||
* Configure 389 Directory Server instances (like FreeIPA) because the set of configuration attributes for the backend depends on the underlying database implementation. | |||
The unused parameters are ignored, so it should not impact the compatibility. | |||
But there is a risk with the new parameters: the "20 GB" default value for the LMDB database maximum size may not be large enough for the application's needs. | |||
* Monitor 389 Directory Server backends because the set of attributes in the monitoring entries also depends on the underlying database implementation. | |||
More details about these points are described in [https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/FAQ/Berkeley-DB-deprecation.html 389 Directory Server FAQ - BerkeleyDB backend deprecation] | |||
== How To Test == | == How To Test == | ||
| Line 138: | Line 146: | ||
--> | --> | ||
[https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/389ds/389-ds-base-freeipa-tests/ COPR project] contains builds that can be tested (F37, F38, F39, rawhide on x86_64 and s390x). | |||
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/389ds/389-ds-base-freeipa-tests/ | |||
So you can install them by using: | So you can install them by using: | ||
< | <pre> | ||
sudo dnf copr enable -y @389ds/389-ds-base-freeipa-tests | sudo dnf copr enable -y @389ds/389-ds-base-freeipa-tests | ||
sudo dnf install 389-ds-base-3.0.0 | sudo dnf install 389-ds-base-3.0.0 | ||
</ | </pre> | ||
Then you can create new directory server instances and use them. | Then you can create new directory server instances and use them. | ||
== User Experience == | == User Experience == | ||
| Line 166: | Line 168: | ||
- Green has been scientifically proven to be the most relaxing color. The move to a default background color of green with green text will result in Fedora users being the most relaxed users of any operating system. | - Green has been scientifically proven to be the most relaxing color. The move to a default background color of green with green text will result in Fedora users being the most relaxed users of any operating system. | ||
--> | --> | ||
Prepare the removal of an obsolete piece of software | Prepare for the removal of an obsolete piece of software that is no longer supported by the upstream community. This process aims to provide more visibility to its replacement. | ||
== Dependencies == | == Dependencies == | ||
| Line 172: | Line 174: | ||
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
All the dependent packages are owned by | All the dependent packages are owned by 389DS and FreeIPA teams: | ||
`dnf repoquery --whatrequires 389-ds-base | `dnf repoquery --whatrequires 389-ds-base --recursive` | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| Line 181: | Line 183: | ||
! Package !! Owner !! Tests | ! Package !! Owner !! Tests | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 389-ds-base-snmp || | | 389-ds-base-snmp || 389DS || Tested by 389DS CI test | ||
|- | |- | ||
| cockpit-389-ds || | | cockpit-389-ds || 389DS || Tested by 389DS CI test | ||
|- | |- | ||
| freeipa-fas || | | freeipa-fas || FreeIPA || Tested by FreeIPA CI test | ||
|- | |- | ||
| freeipa-healthcheck || | | freeipa-healthcheck || FreeIPA || Tested by FreeIPA CI test | ||
|- | |- | ||
| freeipa- | | freeipa-server || FreeIPA || Tested by FreeIPA CI test | ||
|- | |- | ||
| freeipa-server | | freeipa-server-dns || FreeIPA || Tested by FreeIPA CI test | ||
|- | |- | ||
| freeipa-server | | 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 | |||
| slapi-nis || | |||
|} | |} | ||
== Contingency Plan == | == Contingency Plan == | ||
<!-- If you cannot complete your feature by the final development freeze, what is the backup plan? This might be as simple as "Revert the shipped configuration". Or it might not (e.g. rebuilding a number of dependent packages). If you feature is not completed in time we want to assure others that other parts of Fedora will not be in jeopardy. --> | <!-- If you cannot complete your feature by the final development freeze, what is the backup plan? This might be as simple as "Revert the shipped configuration". Or it might not (e.g. rebuilding a number of dependent packages). If you feature is not completed in time we want to assure others that other parts of Fedora will not be in jeopardy. --> | ||
* Contingency mechanism: | * Contingency mechanism: <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
* Revert the default backend implementation to Berkeley Database | |||
* If libdb-5.3 or libdb-devel is no longer shipped in Fedora: | |||
The plan is to build libdb static library as part of 389-ds-base build process and link libback-ldbm statically with it | |||
(as described in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_statically_linking_executables). | |||
The risk is that we may have to generate patches in case of CVE that impacts 389-ds or in case of build environment changes until we can remove the support of the bdb backend. libdb-5.3.28-55.fc38.src shows that the risk is quite limited (1 cve and one set of patches related to c99 since 2017). | |||
<!-- When is the last time the contingency mechanism can be put in place? This will typically be the beta freeze. --> | <!-- When is the last time the contingency mechanism can be put in place? This will typically be the beta freeze. --> | ||
* Contingency deadline: | * Contingency deadline: Fedora 40 beta freeze (2024-02-20) | ||
<!-- Does finishing this feature block the release, or can we ship with the feature in incomplete state? --> | <!-- Does finishing this feature block the release, or can we ship with the feature in incomplete state? --> | ||
* Blocks release? No | * Blocks release? No | ||
== Documentation == | == Documentation == | ||
| Line 236: | Line 222: | ||
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
[https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/FAQ/Berkeley-DB-deprecation.html Directory Server FAQ - BerkeleyDB backend deprecation] | |||
== Release Notes == | == Release Notes == | ||
| Line 244: | Line 230: | ||
Release Notes are not required for initial draft of the Change Proposal but has to be completed by the Change Freeze. | Release Notes are not required for initial draft of the Change Proposal but has to be completed by the Change Freeze. | ||
--> | --> | ||
Need to | Need to write release notes for 3.0.0 in https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/releases/release-notes.html as usual for 389DS. | ||
in https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/releases/release-notes.html as usual for | |||
Latest revision as of 00:38, 16 December 2023
389_Directory_Server_3.0.0
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: 389 Directory Server Development Team
- 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: 2023-12-16
- Announced
- Discussion thread
- FESCo issue: #3120
- Tracker bug: #2254788
- Release notes tracker: #1063
Detailed Description
Since Fedora 36 (389-ds-base 2.1.0), the 389 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, this change is about to create instances with LMDB by default.
Feedback
No feedback yet.
Benefit to Fedora
A step on the way to remove a deprecated piece of software no longer supported by the upstream community. (See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Libdb_deprecated)
Scope
The change is quite limited in terms of development and interface impact, but it impacts a critical component: FreeIPA.
[1] Impact on software that uses generic LDAP interface without any specific 389DS features (like configuration tools and monitoring entries): No interface impact, but there may be some impact in terms of dynamic (i.e: response time, maximum throughput). Especially if browsing (i.e VLV) indexes are used on big lists.
[2] Impact on software that explicitly creates 389DS 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 on software that explicitly uses 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 a 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 the remaining work is to merge the commit in the upstream branch and rebase it to rawhide.
The larger impact is to determine if there are any regressions while running 389DS and FreeIPA tests and fix them (with the help of the FreeIPA team).
- Other developers:
The FreeIPA team is involved to help us diagnose any potential FreeIPA test regressions.
Other QA teams may also be involved to test that there are no regressions.
- 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 be any compatibility issues (bugs excepted) with the LDAP requests, but performance may be impacted.
There may be issues with applications that explicitly:
- Configure 389 Directory Server instances (like FreeIPA) because the set of configuration attributes for the backend depends on the underlying database implementation.
The unused parameters are ignored, so it should not impact the compatibility. But there is a risk with the new parameters: the "20 GB" default value for the LMDB database maximum size may not be large enough for the application's needs.
- Monitor 389 Directory Server backends because the set of attributes in the monitoring entries also depends on the underlying database implementation.
More details about these points are described in 389 Directory Server FAQ - BerkeleyDB backend deprecation
How To Test
COPR project contains builds 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 for the removal of an obsolete piece of software that is no longer supported by the upstream community. This process aims to provide more visibility to its 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 | Tested by 389DS CI test |
| 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:
- Revert the default backend implementation to Berkeley Database
- If libdb-5.3 or libdb-devel is no longer shipped in Fedora:
The plan is to build libdb static library as part of 389-ds-base build process and link libback-ldbm statically with it (as described in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_statically_linking_executables). The risk is that we may have to generate patches in case of CVE that impacts 389-ds or in case of build environment changes until we can remove the support of the bdb backend. libdb-5.3.28-55.fc38.src shows that the risk is quite limited (1 cve and one set of patches related to c99 since 2017).
- Contingency deadline: Fedora 40 beta freeze (2024-02-20)
- Blocks release? No
Documentation
Directory Server FAQ - BerkeleyDB backend deprecation
Release Notes
Need to write release notes for 3.0.0 in https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/releases/release-notes.html as usual for 389DS.