Re[4]: openldap-server-2.2.29: multimaster support

["Sergey A. Kobzar" <ksa@uaic.net>]

Hello Quanah,

Saturday, November 19, 2005, 5:58:18 AM, you wrote:



> --On Friday, November 18, 2005 10:46 PM +0200 "Sergey A. Kobzar" 
> <ksa@uaic.net> wrote:

>> Hello John,
>>
>> Friday, November 18, 2005, 9:23:17 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>>> Does the FAQ entry about multi-master replication* need to be updated?
>>>> What about the draft "LDAP Multi-master Replication Considered Harmful"?
>>>>
>>>> In fact I'd like to know if multi-master replication with syncrepl can
>>>> be considered as sure or if it is harmful too.
>>
>>> I only use sycnrepl to achieve high availability (by combining with
>>> heartbeat), I haven't tested it as a true multi-master environment.  It
>>> just seems likely to me that it might work, but I don't have the time
>>> personally to mess with it.  Please do feel free to try it out. :)
>>> Personally, I agree with Zeilenga's draft.
>>
>>> I can't think of a situation in which multi-master replication would
>>> actually make any sense anyway.  (The closest scenario I can think of is
>>> a load-balanced configuration, but even then, you can't rely on each
>>> side of the cluster to be up to date at any given point in time since
>>> replication is asynchronous.)
>>
>> I have situation:
>>
>> Two offices are connected by low-speed channel. On both offices I have
>> users, that want change their password without my assistance (by
>> Samba, for example).
>>
>> If I'll setup Samba from office with slave use master LDAP server,
>> speed will be slow...

> I think that having two masters syncrepl from each other is still 
> sufficient here.  Since the password changes are going to go to the local
> master, there shouldn't be much risk of data collisions between the two
> sites.

One user can present in one of offices.
Users don't have duplicates! ;)

-- 
Best regards,
 Sergey                            mailto:ksa@uaic.net