[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: syncrepl questions
At 01:06 PM 9/24/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Howard Chu writes:
>>>> Though the basic "update everyone" concept is simple enough, we'd
>>>> still need LDAP transactions to make it clean, which would allow for
>>>> consistent multimastering.
>>> Well, we'll probably write it so that one daemon on one host
>>> will do all
>>> the updates. So that daemon will handle consistency issues.
>> That's what Kurt's reply alluded to - without two-phase commit your
>> clients will get an inconsistent view. In the time it takes for your
>> daemon to send an update to each slave, some client queries will be
>> directed to slaves with fresh data, others will go to slaves with
>> stale data.
>Sounds nice to avoid, but it wouldn't be a problem for us anyway.
>We only need to ensure that we don't get old data after the modify
>and the sync operations have returned (successfully).
Another problem with this approach (with or without transactions)
is that the entries created in the independent servers would have
independent UUIDs and CSNs.