[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: partial replication of entries/attributes
I did not follow the complete thread so not sure I understand the issue...
what I understand is, lets say there is a tree ou=xxxx, o=yyyy
now I want to replicate entries under this tree to different servers based
on some attribute( or multiple of them) A.
so if attribute A
= a --> replicate to server 1
= b ---> replicate to server 2
Is this correct?
Is it possible to do this using openldap?
one more question on this.... lets say I have a client which needs to
access entries with A = "a" most of the time but also needs to access rest
of the entries once in a while. Is there any way a ldap client can use
above mentioned server setup so that all the entries with A = "a" are
accessed from "server 1" but rest of entries are retrieved from the main
server which has whole tree under "ou=xxxx,....".
At 01:55 PM 1/10/02 -0800, Howard Chu wrote:
Seems like it should not be much trouble. Especially given how flexible
ad_inlist is with attributes/objectclasses.
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:51 PM
> To: Pierangelo Masarati
> Cc: email@example.com; openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
> Subject: Re: partial replication of entries/attributes
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> : > In LDAP/X.500, modifications are atomic, all-or-nothing. If any
> part of an
> : > update fails the entire update must fail. The place to limit
> things is on the
> : > master, when it generates the replog.
> : I definitely meant using some sort of ACLs when generating the replog
> : data, a sort of extension/generalization of the current code that
> : partially replicates a subtree. One could think of generating only
> : partial changes based on some rule; ACLs may be one flexible way to
> : write those rules.
> If you mean like the "filter replicas" some vendors offer, I think
> this would be just dandy.