[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Troubleshooting synchronization

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Torsten Schlabach (Tascel eG)
<tschlabach@tascel.net> wrote:
> Hi Quanah!
>
>> I suggest you go read the CHANGES log for what has been fixed between
>> 2.4.11 and the latest stable 2.4.19.
>
> I need to say, it worries me a bit that for problems with a core feature
> which has been around for quite some time, the answer is more often that
> I like to hear: You need to use the latest version released last week /
> month or so.
>
> I have indeed read the CHANGES and seen that some issues have been
> fixed. I have no idea if we are affected by those issues or now.
>
> Also how would I know that *now* in 2.4.19 all problems are fixed and
> the answer next week won't be: You need to use 2.4.20.
>
> But as this is a FOSS project and not a product we pay for, we
> understand that we should not blame people but try and help if we find a
> a problem.
>
> For that reason I have asked in my email for help on *understanding* and
> *diagnosing* problems to have a chance to contribute in case we will
> find any new issues.
>
> Also our customers may not like it if in case of a problem we tell them:
> Let's wait if in some weeks a new release will come which will fix it or
> not. So I'd rather be in a position to get my hands dirty myself in case
> of problems.
>
> Regards,
> Torsten
>
>
> Quanah Gibson-Mount schrieb:
>> --On Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:12 PM +0100 "Torsten Schlabach
>> (Tascel eG)" <tschlabach@tascel.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> I am currently trying to chase some problems in an n-way multi-master
>>> setup with three servers. We have used the instructions at
>>>
>>> http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/replication.html#N-Way%20Multi-Master
>>>
>>> as our guidance and we are using OpenLDAP version 2.4.11.
>>
>> I suggest you go read the CHANGES log for what has been fixed between
>> 2.4.11 and the latest stable 2.4.19.
>>
>> --Quanah
>>
>> --
>>
>> Quanah Gibson-Mount
>> Principal Software Engineer
>> Zimbra, Inc
>> --------------------
>> Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
>

>>Also how would I know that *now* in 2.4.19 all problems are fixed and
>>the answer next week won't be: You need to use 2.4.20.

Testing reveals the presence of bugs, not the absence :)  So no one
can every say version x.y.z is certified bug free.

However, I do tend to agree, in that my MM just flaked out, and there
is not much load/write/update going on so I am a bit worried.

I am not trying to put down OpenLDAP but iplanet/fedora directory
server/389 support up to a 4 way MM implementation and I have found
the replication rock solid even under high load. So if MM is your
requirement that may be a more valid option.


>>The answer is quite simple: do not use multimaster replication in a
>>production environment. In most cases the requirement for multimaster
>>replication is just based on poor directory design.

Dieter, I do not agree with that. You can't blame a user for using a
feature. It is not marked as experimental anymore so people are going
to use it. Once it fails you can't call them a "Poor Directory
Designer" for using it.

http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/1240.html