Re: poor performance of OpenLDAP vs AD?

[Samuel Tran <stran@amnh.org>]

On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 11:19 +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> (...)
> 
> >>  On the other hand, there seems to be
> >>  much overhead concerned with additional data that goes around to keep
> >>  this multimaster state in sync.
> > 
> > 
> > And here is where the argument really falls down - all else is Not 
> > equal, their replication protocol requires a huge amount of metadata to 
> > maintain synchronization for each update.
> 
> Thanks for all your input.
> 
> Perhaps it's my last concern.
> 
> In a multi-master case, we can modify/add/delete entries even when the 
> physical connection between the servers is broken (WAN/VPN down etc.).
> After the connection is back, they will sync according to some alghoritm 
> (mostly timestamps, and if they happen to be equal, then the 
> "supermaster" overwrites all other changes).
> 
> In a master-slave scenario, when the connection to a master is broken, 
> we can't make any updates/modifications on a slave, which sometimes can 
> be a major drawback.
> 
> Or perhaps it's possible to configure OpenLDAP in a way, that we can 
> "temporarily" edit slave database when the connection to the master is 
> broken, and when the connection is back, changes are sent to the master, 
> which in turn decides on what to do with it?
> 

I am very interested in a solution where we would have a highly
available Master server. How can I achieve that? Turning a slave to a
master using a automatic mechanism when the master seems to be the only
option. Am I correct?

Thanks.
Sam