> On 16 May 2019, at 13:05, aravind gosukonda <arabha123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> A simple way to consider this is that every 389 instance in a container is a read-only >> replica, then you simplfy your system a lot (RO instances have a replica ID of 65535 (I >> think)). This way on startup/shutdown you just re-init the RO from an external hub or >> similar, then you don't care if you delete the volume associate with the container. >> >> If you plan to make your container instances writeable, you should probably not autoscale >> - consider a container addition/removal the same as adding/removing a host, requiring a >> clean ruv, and other maintenance tasks to be performed. Consider each persistent volume >> with a replica id, db, changelog, as the "instance" and the container just >> enables access to it. >> >> So every time you add another container to the scaling, you need to add another persistent >> volume, with it's own unique replica Id's, db, changelog, and then have >> replication between them. >> >> Perhaps what could help me is a diagram of your planned infrastructure? >> >> >> To help with this, let's assume: >> >> [ Container 1 ] >> | >> [ Volume ID abcd ] >> >> Now you destroy container 1 and upgrade to a newer version - if this is the case, so long >> as all your stateful data is in the volume (dse.ldif, db, changelog db), then this is >> fine: >> >> [ Container NEW! ] >> | >> [ Volume ID abcd ] >> >> It would act like container 1 did, with the same replica ID etc. >> > The docker image just has the 389-ds packages installed. I'm running an init script, which will check if there is already any data present in the attached volume and start it or create a new ds instance, using dscreate and inf files. So I think I have auto-scaling covered, as the volumes are also created on demand, using a kubernetes storageclass. If the container is removed, you need to do a cleanallruv on shutdown, and purge the volume so the replica ID can be reused. So you likely only have autoscaling to *grow* covered, but not to shrink. >> >> It would be great to have some more testing of the dscontainer tool too, so please see how >> that goes. You can use the latest with opensuse/tumbleweed:latest as a docker base image, >> and just zypper in 389-ds-base. If you want even NEWER versions, you can look at >> network:ldap as a repo - I'm happy to help provide dockerfile advice for these cases. >> These assume all your state is in /data, so provided you have that you can work as per the >> example above. >> > I'll also spin up a separate set for testing dscontainer, from the repos you've mentioned. Sounds awesome. >> — >> Sincerely, >> >> William Brown >> >> Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server >> SUSE Labs > Thanks, > Aravind > _______________________________________________ > 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx — Sincerely, William Brown Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
