directory-fortress mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yudhi Karunia Surtan <yudh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Supporting LDAP HA client
Date Wed, 25 Apr 2018 04:50:11 GMT
Hi guys,

I just commit a new code and test with 2 ldap with round robin connection
strategy.
Bellow are the scenarios:

- start commander with 2 ldap and shut and start one to another.
- start commander with 1 ldap and start other ldap defined at the
configuration.

and the result are great both scenarios working well without disturbing the
user interactions, so the HA working smooth.

I would like to release this version internally and deploy along with CAS
at my production at Mei 15 and before that i would like to do some
performance test to make sure the logic able to perform in production later.

Do we have a plan for releasing new fortress version before Mei 15?
If it is yes then i will not using my own version and follow the main
community release line and do the perf test on that version.


Yudhi Karunia Surtan


On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:22 AM, Yudhi Karunia Surtan <yudhiks@apache.org>
wrote:

> Well, this is actually only a draft.
> With this, I hope i can drag more idea from you guys.
> Please share if you guys have any input.
> I will try to modified "LdapConnectionProvider" tomorrow and use the
> class that I made and see how it works.
> I will update you guys about the experiment result at end of tomorrow.
>
>
> Yudhi Karunia Surtan
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 21:20 Shawn McKinney <smckinney@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I just now glanced at the code Yudhi, will need to test it, but first
>> glance looks pretty good.  Your approach of how to integrate the change is
>> good.
>>
>> Shawn
>>
>> > On Apr 19, 2018, at 7:45 AM, Yudhi Karunia Surtan <yudhiks@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Guys,
>> >
>> > After trying to understand better about commons-pool,
>> > apache-directory-ldap-api and fortress.
>> > I've come with a draft solution at branch "trivial/support-ha-client"
>> >
>> > I introduce 2 class which
>> >
>> > src/main/java/org/apache/directory/fortress/core/ldap/
>> HAConnectionStrategy.java
>> > src/main/java/org/apache/directory/fortress/core/ldap/
>> LdapHAConnectionPool.java
>> >
>> > with this i try to minimize the existing changes at
>> LdapConnectionProvider
>> > class.
>> >
>> > the idea is by changing :
>> > adminPool = new LdapConnectionPool( poolFactory );
>> >
>> > into :
>> >
>> > adminPool = new  LdapHAConnectionPool( poolFactory );
>> >
>> > at  LdapConnectionProvider class.
>> >
>> > What do you guys think about the changes i made at those branch?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yudhi Karunia Surtan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Yudhi Karunia Surtan <
>> yudhiks@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ok shawn..
>> >> I think it is possible to use keyedpool too, because it able act as
>> >> arbiter. Let me finish this thing and update u once after it finished.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 22:18 Shawn McKinney <smckinney@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Apr 16, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Yudhi Karunia Surtan <
>> yudhiks@apache.org>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My idea is a bit different with ldaptive implementation which they
>> >>> mostly
>> >>>> do the check before giving the connection. For fortress or ldap-api
i
>> >>>> propose that the the client need to understand which node is healthy
>> and
>> >>>> give only the health one or thrown exception if all bad.
>> >>>
>> >>> Agreed
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Apr 16, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Yudhi Karunia Surtan <
>> yudhiks@apache.org>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I still don't know how big the changes will be but i think better
if
>> I
>> >>> try
>> >>>> to put it on the code first and later all of you can give a feedback
>> >>> about
>> >>>> it. It might changes the current LdapConnectionProvider class.
>> >>>
>> >>> That sounds like a good plan to me.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Apr 16, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Yudhi Karunia Surtan <
>> yudhiks@apache.org>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Do you have an idea how should ldap health check should be?
>> >>>> Is that necessary to use bind command or something like telnet should
>> >>> work?
>> >>>
>> >>> I’d think the health check’s purpose is to make sure that server
is
>> >>> responding in as lightweight a way as possible.  Bind is too heavy.
>> >>> Telnet’s a possibility, but this is something we’ll vet with on
the
>> dev’prs
>> >>> list.  For your experiment, anything will work knowing it may change
>> later.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Shawn
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
>>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message