nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Complicated scenario to make the deployment transactional

System

Hi All,

I have a business case where there are 8 server and on each server there are three different paths. All the 8 servers are OD receivers (not base). I have all together 24 different paths where I have to deploy the same file.

Business wants the deploymnet to be transaction. It should either deploy to all 24 paths or if one fails everything should fail to avoid any kind of data inconsistency.

I have gone through the docs but couldn't find the ways to make transaction in case where we need to deploy on different paths. The purpose to keep several copies to manage the heavy load on servers and for disaster recovery.

OS: Solaris 10
TS: 6.7.2
OD: 6.002

Thanks in advance
Rajesh

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

ISCBorisB

Hi All,

I have a business case where there are 8 server and on each server there are three different paths. All the 8 servers are OD receivers (not base). I have all together 24 different paths where I have to deploy the same file.

Business wants the deploymnet to be transaction. It should either deploy to all 24 paths or if one fails everything should fail to avoid any kind of data inconsistency.

I have gone through the docs but couldn't find the ways to make transaction in case where we need to deploy on different paths. The purpose to keep several copies to manage the heavy load on servers and for disaster recovery.

OS: Solaris 10
TS: 6.7.2
OD: 6.002

Thanks in advance
Rajesh

Unless you've omitted some details this Scenario is covered out of the box.

You can configure various Target locations in Replication Farms, in multiple deployment
definitions or both. Then just deploy required collection with transactional="yes" attribute.
What's the problem?

Adam Stoller

Are the 3 paths on each of the 8 servers consistent?
Are the 3 paths distinct or sub-directories of one or the other?

Assuming 3 distinct but consistent paths - I believe you should be able to do this by:

If the target paths are not distinct, you'd want to turn on receiver side queuing.If the target paths are not consistent, you'll have to do some other stuff to attempt to get it to work.

Migrateduser

[QUOTE=ghoti]Are the 3 paths on each of the 8 servers consistent?
Are the 3 paths distinct or sub-directories of one or the other?

Assuming 3 distinct but consistent paths - I believe you should be able to do this by:

Thanks for the response!!The scenario is as follows:Server1targetPath = "aaa/abc/M7m1/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M7m5/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M7m9/DDdirectory"Server2targetPath = "aaa/abc/M7m2/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M7m6/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M7m10/DDdirectory"Server3targetPath = "aaa/abc/M7m3/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M7m7/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M7m11/DDdirectory"Server4targetPath = "aaa/abc/M7m4/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M7m8/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M7m12/DDdirectory"Server5targetPath = "aaa/abc/M8m1/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M8m5/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M8m9/DDdirectory"Server6targetPath = "aaa/abc/M8m2/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M8m6/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M8m10/DDdirectory"Server7targetPath = "aaa/abc/M8m3/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M8m7/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M8m11/DDdirectory"Server8targetPath = "aaa/abc/M8m4/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M8m8/DDdirectory"targetPath = "aaa/abc/M8m12/DDdirectory"*****************************************As you see all the paths are different. It is not easy to pull all the servers under one replicationFarmset.

Adam Stoller

The fact that you have three inconsistent directory paths on each of the eight servers does complicate things. I can think of [at least] two possible solutions:

I believe that either approach should work, but I'd strongly recommend testing in simulated mode first, and then in "real" mode afterwards and carefully verifying the results before considering the issue resolved.

Migrateduser

[QUOTE=ghoti]The fact that you have three inconsistent directory paths on each of the eight servers does complicate things. I can think of [at least] two possible solutions:

in receiver "server1.test.com"

Adam Stoller

Hi,
Thanks for the detailed explaination!!!

I am trying with the second approach as you suggested. I tried with simulation and it worked. When I removed simulation, my deployments started hangging up. I have attached my OD config file. I bounced all the 8 OD receivers killed all the perl processes which were hanging also killed the od command process which was waiting for Q.
WAITING in queue of target path "/aaa/abc/M1m1/DDdirectory" for child [0] in receiver "server1.test.com"

I don't see anything inherently wrong in your config - though I'd simply things by moving the permissionRules setting down to the target element and thus making your replicationFarm look like this:[html]

[/html]
Without actually looking at the logs and server configuration files and such - which I am not offering to do - it is difficult to diagnose exactly what is happening and/or why its happening - however from the error message it sounds like you may need to enable server-side queuing ... which might not be available until you upgrade to 6.1.1 (or later - recommend at least 6.2.1) where the

pathRegistryChecking

option was added (6.2.1 added serialization in conjunction with that option)

Firenze

Upgrading to lastest OD is good idea.

How many deployment defintions have you configured for the deployment? 24?
Have you tried turning transactional off to see which one is failing, maybe you just have a bad OD receiver set up.

Migrateduser

however from the error message it sounds like you may need to enable server-side queuing ... which might not be available until you upgrade to 6.1.1 (or later - recommend at least 6.2.1) where the
pathRegistryChecking
option was added (6.2.1 added serialization in conjunction with that option)

We had similar issue with transactional deployment of content to different paths on same server, and it was resolved after upgrading OD receiver to 6.2.0 + enable pathRegistryChecking on OD receivers.