Fedora directory users - Mar 2008 - Fedora DS version compatibility

Hi all,

I''m looking to upgrade some Fedora DS 1.02 servers to 1.1. We use a
master-slave replicated configuration. Before I get too far into it, are there
any known compatibility issues between 1.1 and 1.02? I was planning on updating
one of the slaves to 1.1 first, leaving our master 1.02 server as it is for the
time being. Is this possible or would I have to upgrade the master first?

Thanks,

-Luke

-- 
Luke Bigum, Unix Administrator, Information Technology Services Division
Deakin University, Waterfront Campus, Victoria 3217 Australia.
Phone: 03 5227 8691 International: +61 3 5227 8691
Fax:   03 5227 8866 International: +61 3 5227 8866
E-mail:   luke.bigum@deakin.edu.au
Website:   http://www.deakin.edu.au
 
Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B (Vic), 02414F (NSW)
 
Important Notice: The contents of this email transmission, including any
attachments, are intended solely for the named addressee and are
confidential; any unauthorized use, reproduction or storage of the contents
and any attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, please delete it and any attachments from your
system immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone.
Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments
are error or virus free.

Luke Bigum wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I''m looking to upgrade some Fedora DS 1.02 servers to 1.1. We use
a
> master-slave replicated configuration. Before I get too far into it, 
> are there any known compatibility issues between 1.1 and 1.02? I was 
> planning on updating one of the slaves to 1.1 first, leaving our 
> master 1.02 server as it is for the time being. Is this possible or 
> would I have to upgrade the master first?
1.0.x can replicate to 1.1 and vice versa, should be no issue
there.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Luke
>

On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:46 PM, Luke Bigum wrote:
>
> I''m looking to upgrade some Fedora DS 1.02 servers to 1.1. We use
a
> master-slave replicated configuration. Before I get too far into it,  
> are there any known compatibility issues between 1.1 and 1.02? I was  
> planning on updating one of the slaves to 1.1 first, leaving our  
> master 1.02 server as it is for the time being. Is this possible or  
> would I have to upgrade the master first?
>
We took a few steps down that same road and were less than pleased  
with the results.  Our configuration directory is still running 1.0.2  
and a 1.1 slave was unable to register with it despite repeated  
attempts and some poking around inside the configuration directory.

So, we ended up with that slave running without being registered with  
the configuration directory.

 From where I sit, it looks like an all-or-nothing affair to upgrade  
to 1.1.

David

--
David Bogen :: (608) 263-0168
Unix SysAdmin :: IceCube Project
david.bogen@icecube.wisc.edu

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Luke Bigum wrote:
> I''m looking to upgrade some Fedora DS 1.02 servers to 1.1. We use
a
> master-slave replicated configuration. Before I get too far into it, are
there
> any known compatibility issues between 1.1 and 1.02? I was planning on 
> updating one of the slaves to 1.1 first, leaving our master 1.02 server as
it
> is for the time being. Is this possible or would I have to upgrade the
master
> first?
We''ve been transitioning our 1.0.4 boxes to 1.1 one at a time.  We
have four machines in a multimaster setup, and we''ve been running a
mixed cluster for four weeks now, without any replication issues at
all.

We only use the base DS, though, so I can''t comment on any of the
configuration directory issues one of the other responders reported.

Chris St. Pierre
Unix Systems Administrator
Nebraska Wesleyan University

Thanks for everyone''s reply. David, I too had the same issue, even
problems registering with another 1.1 instance. A bit of digging and Googling
led me to this Red Hat Bug that has solved my registration problem, it might fix
yours:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431103

The problem seems to be the setup script tries to create objects a few levels
down without first creating parent objects. The workaround is to create the
entries by hand using the template LDIF provided. For an LDIF file,
don''t forget to add "changetype: add" after the distinguished
name line, then:

ldapmodify -a -f ~/ldif.txt -x -H ldap://hydra.its.deakin.edu.au:389/ -D
"uid=admin,ou=Administrators,ou=TopologyManagement,o=NetscapeRoot" -w
''xxxxxx''

David Bogen wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:46 PM, Luke Bigum wrote:
> 
>>
>> I''m looking to upgrade some Fedora DS 1.02 servers to 1.1. We
use a
>> master-slave replicated configuration. Before I get too far into it, 
>> are there any known compatibility issues between 1.1 and 1.02? I was 
>> planning on updating one of the slaves to 1.1 first, leaving our 
>> master 1.02 server as it is for the time being. Is this possible or 
>> would I have to upgrade the master first?
>>
> 
> We took a few steps down that same road and were less than pleased with 
> the results.  Our configuration directory is still running 1.0.2 and a 
> 1.1 slave was unable to register with it despite repeated attempts and 
> some poking around inside the configuration directory.
> 
> So, we ended up with that slave running without being registered with 
> the configuration directory.
> 
>  From where I sit, it looks like an all-or-nothing affair to upgrade to 
> 1.1.
> 
> David
> 
> -- 
> David Bogen :: (608) 263-0168
> Unix SysAdmin :: IceCube Project
> david.bogen@icecube.wisc.edu
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Fedora-directory-users mailing list
> Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
-- 
Luke Bigum, Unix Administrator, Information Technology Services Division
Deakin University, Waterfront Campus, Victoria 3217 Australia.
Phone: 03 5227 8691 International: +61 3 5227 8691
Fax:   03 5227 8866 International: +61 3 5227 8866
E-mail:   luke.bigum@deakin.edu.au
Website:   http://www.deakin.edu.au
 
Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B (Vic), 02414F (NSW)
 
Important Notice: The contents of this email transmission, including any
attachments, are intended solely for the named addressee and are
confidential; any unauthorized use, reproduction or storage of the contents
and any attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, please delete it and any attachments from your
system immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone.
Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments
are error or virus free.

After I''ve had a chance to work with this further I don''t
recommend anyone reregister any 1.1 servers with a 1.0.x configuration
directory. While the installation of a new server will not fail, attempting to
access the new server from the old console does not work. I''m still
messing around, but I think I will have to move down the same path as David and
have each replicated node registered with itself.

Luke Bigum wrote:
> Thanks for everyone''s reply. David, I too had the same issue, even
> problems registering with another 1.1 instance. A bit of digging and 
> Googling led me to this Red Hat Bug that has solved my registration 
> problem, it might fix yours:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431103
> 
> The problem seems to be the setup script tries to create objects a few 
> levels down without first creating parent objects. The workaround is to 
> create the entries by hand using the template LDIF provided. For an LDIF 
> file, don''t forget to add "changetype: add" after the
distinguished name
> line, then:
> 
> ldapmodify -a -f ~/ldif.txt -x -H ldap://hydra.its.deakin.edu.au:389/ -D 
>
"uid=admin,ou=Administrators,ou=TopologyManagement,o=NetscapeRoot" -w
> ''xxxxxx''
> 
> David Bogen wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:46 PM, Luke Bigum wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I''m looking to upgrade some Fedora DS 1.02 servers to 1.1.
We use a
>>> master-slave replicated configuration. Before I get too far into
it,
>>> are there any known compatibility issues between 1.1 and 1.02? I
was
>>> planning on updating one of the slaves to 1.1 first, leaving our 
>>> master 1.02 server as it is for the time being. Is this possible or
>>> would I have to upgrade the master first?
>>>
>>
>> We took a few steps down that same road and were less than pleased 
>> with the results.  Our configuration directory is still running 1.0.2 
>> and a 1.1 slave was unable to register with it despite repeated 
>> attempts and some poking around inside the configuration directory.
>>
>> So, we ended up with that slave running without being registered with 
>> the configuration directory.
>>
>>  From where I sit, it looks like an all-or-nothing affair to upgrade 
>> to 1.1.
>>
>> David
>>
>> -- 
>> David Bogen :: (608) 263-0168
>> Unix SysAdmin :: IceCube Project
>> david.bogen@icecube.wisc.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Fedora-directory-users mailing list
>> Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
> 
-- 
Luke Bigum, Unix Administrator, Information Technology Services Division
Deakin University, Waterfront Campus, Victoria 3217 Australia.
Phone: 03 5227 8691 International: +61 3 5227 8691
Fax:   03 5227 8866 International: +61 3 5227 8866
E-mail:   luke.bigum@deakin.edu.au
Website:   http://www.deakin.edu.au
 
Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B (Vic), 02414F (NSW)
 
Important Notice: The contents of this email transmission, including any
attachments, are intended solely for the named addressee and are
confidential; any unauthorized use, reproduction or storage of the contents
and any attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, please delete it and any attachments from your
system immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone.
Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments
are error or virus free.