Question about upgrading and mismatched backends

[Bron Gondwana]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 09:43:26AM -0400, Tim Champ wrote:
> Dave McMurtrie wrote:
> > Tim Champ wrote:
> >   
> >> Hello all.  My first time to post, I only recently joined the list.  I'm 
> >> digging in deeply on an inherited cyrus install, and looking to upgrade.
> >>
> >> My goal is to put a new backend server in place for our setup.  Our 
> >> basic setup is 3 front-ends, 4 back-ends and a mupdate server.
> >>
> >> I'm looking to add a back-end for multiple reasons, but I would like to 
> >> set it up with cyrus 2.3.14 to kill two birds with one stone.  I realize 
> >> some additional options for the config file now exist, with delayed 
> >> delete for folders (which we're looking forward to) and others.
> >>     
> >
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > You don't mention what version the other members of your murder are running.
> >
> > There was a change to the sieve protocol wrt how it doles out a
> > capability response.  2.3.14 should work with old or new sieve clients,
> > so that shouldn't be a problem.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any lmtp changes that would cause breakage between
> > versions.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any mupdate changes that would cause breakage between
> > versions.
> >
> > Ken mentioned to me that there may have been some changes to how XFER
> > works (moving mailboxes between backend servers), but he couldn't
> > remember details off the top of his head.  Even if he did, we'd need to
> > know which versions your other nodes are running.
> >   
> 
> Completely thought it, and didn't type it!  Sorry!  The current version 
> of all parts is 2.3.8 with some patches from fastmail applied.  Also, we 
> have the patch for the sieve xfer bug that existed in that version.  
> I've read through each of the fastmail patches, and most appear 
> integrated into the current releases of Cyrus.  The only ones of note 
> that I was unsure of are named:

Sorry I didn't get back to you today - I completely forgot about it!

Yes - most of them are upstream.  The naming has changed now that
they are absorbed into git - but the commit messages are pretty close
to what I had as the patch headers.  What's on the webpage now is
what we applied against 2.3.14 - a couple of them have gone into
CVS, and I don't (yet) have a nice way to give a patch list against
2.3.14 that's also 100% up-to-date.  Maybe create a divergent branch
and have a "CVS bits" patch at the top of the list always....

> cyrus-md5uuid-2.3.8

You don't want that any more - it's been replaced by sha1 GUIDs.

> imapd-disable-referrals

Not us.

> unified-murder-xfer-fix

Not us.

> I don't know how much this helps anyone to have the names, but I wanted 
> to throw them out there.  The md5uuid one did a lot of changes in order 
> to deal with these, but I don't see (yet) how they were integrated into 
> the current releases.  I also don't see this patch currently from 
> fastmail.  I did see that SHA1 is now the preferred way of deal with 
> this, but I wanted to confirm the backward compatibility if possible.

It will only sha1 new GUIDs.  The old md5 UUID will be placed at the
start of the space, so it will look like 02xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0000000000
(excuse my inaccurate counting, I don't care that much ;)  Something
like that.  They all start with 02 and end with a big block of zeros
anyway.

Bron.