Re: Some openldap 2.4 questions

[Prentice Bisbal <prentice@ias.edu>]

Radosław Antoniuk wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com
> <mailto:hyc@symas.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Radosław Antoniuk wrote:
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > Three quick issues about slapd 2.4.
>     >
>     > 1. I'm setting up a syncrepl replication. In the process of
>     testing, I had
>     > added three syncprov overlays instead of one, and I ended up with:
> 
>     > The thing is, that I cannot delete any of them because cn=config
>     does not
>     > support delete operation.
>     > Is this ok to leave it as is? or any workaround to get rid of the
>     unwanted ones?
> 
>     Since it's just a test installation, your best action is to delete
>     it all and
>     start over with the correct LDIF.
> 
>     > 2. About N-Way replication... What's the best authentication to
>     use? Because
>     > (1) RootDN is the admin, and (2) in simple authentication I would
>     store cleartext
>     > password in the syncrepl configuration, I'm assuming that (3) the
>     best here would
>     > be to use some SASL mech?
> 
>     What do any of these 3 points have to do with each other, let alone
>     with N-way
>     replication?
> 
>     > 3. Assuming a running normal replication(master-slave) with
>     refreshAndPersist,
>     > is there any method of checking of the status of the replication?
>     like show
>     > slave status in MySQL. I have tested it with cutting the
>     transmission by
>     > iptables, and ok, it caught up after reconnection, but the master
>     did not
>     > complain at all when the connection was not there...
> 
>     If you had read the docs
>     http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/replication.html
>     you wouldn't need to ask such questions.
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> None of the answers was valid actually.
> If I could start all over, I wouldn't ask, right?
> 
> What it has to do ? It has to do the fact that in this kind of
> replication you are replicating cn=config as well, which usually in
> other kinds is not the case.
> 
> And yes, I read the link you mentioned, hint: the word "status" shows up
> there three times in one sentence that does *not* mention anything about
> external checking of LDAP replication status.
> 
> Ergo, if you don't want to help, don't frustrate the asker :)

I agree. Howard's response was an unwarranted RTFM. If you don't want to
help another subscriber on this list, please don't reply. Helpless
replies are not constructive.

--
Prentice