Re: [Pki-devel] replication of new/modified profiles

Done. https://fedorahosted.org/pki/ticket/1067 thanks, Christina On 07/07/2014 04:44 AM, Ade Lee wrote: > On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 12:59 -0500, Endi Sukma Dewata wrote: >> On 7/3/2014 11:18 AM, Christina Fu wrote: >>> Actually, I did not know that this discussion was restricted to a >>> replicated ("clone") environment. My view was more for a general >>> organizational environment where there are multiple sub-ca's for >>> different departments (which are not necessarily clones, but some >>> could >>> be) and there are two types of profiles: >>> 1. centralized profiles (shared by all) >>> 2. local profiles (customized by each department) >>> >>> I think this view (let's adopt your term and call it proposal #4) is >>> more flexible in serving both non-clones and clones and yet retains >>> the >>> simplicity. >> Thanks for clarifying. Yes, the main purpose of this enhancement is to >> simplify replicating the profiles within a cluster (e.g. IPA). Proposal >> #4 is probably meant to be an inter-cluster profile management. >> Within a >> cluster itself, the replicas should be indistinguishable. >> >> For example: >> * dept1 (cluster1: server1, server2): profile1, profile2 >> * dept2 (cluster2: server3, server4): profile1, profile3 >> * shared: profile1, profile4 >> >> I think proposal #4 can be done as a separate enhancement after we >> address the intra-cluster management (proposal #1-3). >> > Agreed. One of the things we would have to address, for instance, would > be where the shared profiles would reside. Certainly it has to be a > location that is available to all subCA's. Several possibilities come > to mind: > 1) under a baseDN > 2) user-defined > 3) in the security domain - particularly useful perhaps for storing > customized system profiles to used during installation. > > Christina, can you open a ticket for this feature? > >>> You are right, Endi, about how "local profiles" don't necessarily have >>> to be on the disk. It's just a personal preference that I feel most >>> comfortable editing files directly than using ui's. I have never used >>> the java console to edit profiles. I don't know if there are >>> others who >>> feel the same way. Maybe a market research on administrators is >>> needed >>> here. >> Here's the CLI that Fraser proposed: >> http://pki.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LDAP_Profile_Storage#Edit_profile >> >> So instead of executing the following commands on each replica (and >> risking inconsistent changes): >> >> $ vi /var/lib/pki/pki-tomcat/ca/profiles/ca/caUserCert.cfg >> $ systemctl restart pki-tomcatd(a)pki-tomcat.service >> >> you can call this just once (it will use the same vi editor) from any >> machine: >> >> $ pki <connection/auth params> profile-edit caUserCert >> >> and it should automatically propagate the changes to all replica. Same >> thing with the UI, you'll only need to do the changes once. >> > Right, the idea is for the pki utility to spawn an editor -- we would > likely default to "vi", but I suppose we could allow the user to specify > others too. Ideally, what you would see is exactly the same as if you > were editing a file today. > > The console would also continue to work, because it interacts with the > ProfileSubsystem - which will know how to talk to LDAP. > >>>> The problem with local profiles in files is that they are not >>>> replicated, so in case the machine is hosed, all local settings is >>>> gone, including the profiles. Unless the admin created a backup for >>>> each machine, it will be difficult to restore the machine quickly. >>>> The >>>> replicated LDAP profiles will take care of this problem >>>> automatically. >>>> In other proposals the system profiles in files are read-only and not >>>> customizable, so there's no local profiles that need to be backed up. >>>> >>> If they don't do backups, losing profiles would not be their only >>> issue >>> there. >> I think, ideally, if we lose a replica, other replicas should be >> able to >> replace it immediately. We still need a backup for the shared >> data/configuration, but we shouldn't need to backup individual replica. >> A replica should be something that you can add/remove relatively >> quickly. So, as a long term goal we should gradually migrate local >> configuration files into LDAP, starting with the profiles. >> >>> But anyway, like I said above, I think putting "local" profiles >>> in the lda is fine. It's just the user experience of administration >>> that has to change. I have no opinion on this other than stating my >>> personal preference of editing files directly ;-) >> Is the above CLI a good substitute? >> > _______________________________________________ Pki-devel mailing list Pki-devel(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pki-devel