[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: direct local change when a consumer chains a write to the producer? (Was: openldap-server-2.2.29: multimaster support)
- To: "Pierangelo Masarati" <ando@sys-net.it>
- Subject: Re: direct local change when a consumer chains a write to the producer? (Was: openldap-server-2.2.29: multimaster support)
- From: Raphaël Ouazana-Sustowski <raphael.ouazana@linagora.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:15:43 +0100 (CET)
- Cc: "John Madden" <jmadden@ivytech.edu>, "OpenLDAP devel list" <openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org>
- Importance: Low
- In-reply-to: <1132597881.6044.20.camel@ando>
- References: <313423751.20051110113255@uaic.net> <51417.10.0.14.46.1131636197.squirrel@mail.ivytech.edu> <42138.192.168.1.254.1132334767.squirrel@tomate.linagora.lan> <48887.10.0.14.46.1132341797.squirrel@mail.ivytech.edu> <465451149.20051118224611@uaic.net> <20498EEB4C91E6CD7543390E@cadabra-dsl.stanford.edu> <1466010362.20051119122217@uaic.net> <0F84CCF877D1F094219160DC@cadabra-dsl.stanford.edu> <1132493739.3316.112.camel@ando> <F5A02675FC28DA7864C3438C@cadabra-dsl.stanford.edu> <1132505214.3316.117.camel@ando> <43528.192.168.1.254.1132565037.squirrel@tomate.linagora.lan> <32823.10.0.14.46.1132587321.squirrel@mail.ivytech.edu> <53801.192.168.1.254.1132588966.squirrel@tomate.linagora.lan> <1132590414.3330.4.camel@ando> <33022.10.0.14.46.1132590508.squirrel@mail.ivytech.edu> <54934.192.168.1.254.1132591085.squirrel@tomate.linagora.lan> <1132592221.3330.14.camel@ando> <33314.10.0.14.46.1132596351.squirrel@mail.ivytech.edu> <1132597881.6044.20.camel@ando>
- User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.5 [CVS]
On Lun 21 novembre 2005 19:31, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> Note that this approach wouldn't solve the problem of load balancing,
> because a write would be available after successful return only on the
> producer and on the consumer that processed the request; the other
> consumers would be updated according to replication schedule, so if the
> read successive to a write is delegated to another shadow by the load
> balancer, the write would not be in place yet.
Yes, but in real life most load balancers implement persistence. So the
read successive to a write will be on the same directory.
Raphael Ouazana.