Hello Keycloak Devs,
[I posted this to keycloak-user, but got no response.]
Ultimately, what we want to do is migrate three nodes from one namespace
to another within a Kubernetes cluster as follows:
Start with three nodes in one Kubernetes namespace that define a
cluster. Then add three more nodes to the cluster in a new namespace
that shares the same subnet and database, then kill off the original
three nodes, effectively migrating the cluster to the new namespace and
we want to do all this without anyone being logged out. The namespace
distinction is invisible to Keycloak, as far as I can tell.
What we have tried:
* Start with 3 standalone-ha mode instances clustered with
* Set the number of cache owners for sessions to 6.
* Start the three new instances in the new Kubernetes namespace,
configured exactly the same as the first three - that is, same db, same
number of cache owners.
* Kill -9 the original three (I know now that it should be a kill -3,
but don't know if that matters in this case).
But it seems this caused offlineSession tokens to be expired immediately.
I found this in the online documentation
The second type of cache handles managing user sessions, offline
tokens, and keeping track of login failures... The data held in these
caches is temporary, in memory only, but is possibly replicated across
The sessions, authenticationSessions, offlineSessions and
loginFailures caches are the only caches that may perform replication.
Entries are not replicated to every single node, but instead one or more
nodes is chosen as an owner of that data. If a node is not the owner of
a specific cache entry it queries the cluster to obtain it. What this
means for failover is that if all the nodes that own a piece of data go
down, that data is lost forever. By default, Keycloak only specifies one
owner for data. So if that one node goes down that data is lost. This
usually means that users will be logged out and will have to login again.
It appears, based on these documentation comments and our experience,
that the "source of truth" regarding offlineSessions is the data in the
"owner" caches, is NOT the database, as I would have expected. It also
seems to be the case that if a node joins the cluster (as defined by
JGroups/JDBC_PING), it will NOT be able to populate its offlineSessions
cache from the database, but must rely on replication from one of the
1. Is the above understanding regarding the db vs cache correct?
2. If so, please explain the design/reasoning behind this behavior.
Otherwise, please correct my understanding.
3. Is there a way to perform this simple migration without losing any