directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot ...@marcelot.net>
Subject Re: AdministrativePoint handling
Date Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:53:33 GMT
Hi Emmanuel,

Interesting idea!

A great combination of both original solutions into a single one...

I like the idea of lazy evaluation and the fact that the administrator can, if he wants it,
go back to solution #1 by simply searching (objectClass=*) under the newly created/updated
AP after it has been added/modified (It can be an option of a dedicated tool to manage the
APs in Studio).

The best of both worlds...

+1

Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud

On 13 déc. 2010, at 11:41, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm resuming the APs implementation. I have had a new idea this morning about the best
way to handle them.
> 
> Currently, we had devised about too possible options
> 
> 1) Processing the entries while adding a new AP
> The idea is that when we add a new AP (or delete an existing one, or modifying an existing
one), we evaluate all the underlying entries and update each one which is selected by the
associated SubtreeSpecification by adding a reference to its associated AP in the entry.
> This is done once, then when a user grab an entry, we don't need to evaluate it again,
as this work has already been done, so we accept to pay the price once, but it's free for
every operation after this initial update.
> 
> The price to pay is pretty expensive, if we consider a huge base with hundred of thousands
entries, as we have to update many, and as an update is slow (we currently can process 600
per second of such updates - depending on the server we are running on, of course -, so for
1 000 000 entries it might take up to 30 minutes ).
> 
> 2) Processing the evaluation on the fly
> The second idea is to evaluate the entry when a user requests it, to avoid paying the
price for the initial update.
> 
> The big problem with this approach is that if we have many APs SubtreeSpecifications
to evaluate, this evaluation is not free, plus it has to occur *everytime* a user access the
entry. That could slow down the server a lot (probably double the time it takes to return
an entry).
> 
> So far, we have decider to go for option #1, simply because adding an AP is an administrative
task, which does not occur very often. We all realize that it has drawbacks, but it's far
better than option #2 anyway.
> 
> Now, I'd like to propose a third option, which might be acceptable, considering that
we will pay a small price compared to both option #1 and #2.
> 
> 3) Processing on the fly and store the result
> The idea is to process the evaluation when someone fetches an entry, but to store the
evaluation result in the entry. If the fetched entry has already been evaluated, then no need
to process it again.
> 
> The direct benefit will be that we won't have this huge initial update required by option
#1, and the entry evaluation wil be just a matter to check if an AT has been set instead of
fully evalute the entry as in option #2.
> 
> How will it works ? Simple : when an AP is added, a Timestamp (TS) is updated. This TS
will be incremented every time we add a new AP. We don't update any entry.
> Then when a user fetch some entries, for every one of the selected entries, we check
if it has a TS AT present. If not, then we evaluate the entry against the AP it depends upon,
and when done, we add the last TS into the entry, save it and return (or not) the entry to
the user.
> If the entry has a TS AT, then we have two cases
> - The TS equals the last TS : the entry has already been evaluated, and we can return
it (or not, depending on the evaluation result)
> - The TS is below, so we reevaluate the entry.
> 
> Now, how will we distinguish between an entry evaluating to true or false ? Easy : if
the entry is selected by a SubtreeSpecification, we will have a ref to the associated AP in
it, otherwise no.
> 
> I do think that this third option has great advantages, and not only from the user or
admin POV : the implementation will be greatly improved, as we don't have to deal with all
the cases when handling an AP addition/modification/deletion.
> 
> One last thing : one may object that the on the fly evaluation is not acceptable, as
it will cost a lot for the first access to an entry. True. But I claim that it's the administrator
to deal with this problem, and then its not anymore a user issue. When the admin add an new
AP, he also can fetch all the entries below the added AP, and they will be updated on the
fly. The users won't be impacted anymore.
> 
> thoughts ?
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> 


Mime
View raw message