[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: replication factored out of slapd
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 15:02 -0800, Howard Chu wrote:
> This also brings to mind another favorite topic - eliminating slurpd...
> Right now we can eliminate slurpd using a separate slapd instance
> configured with a back-ldap pointing at the slave, and a syncrepl
> consumer pointing at the master. A separate slapd instance must be used
> because the back-ldap suffix would be identical to the master's suffix,
> and we don't allow multiple databases to share the same suffix. While
> the current code already provides this functionality, it's inconvenient
> because it requires a slapd instance per replica.
>
> I was thinking about allowing certain databases to be configured as
> "hidden/shadow" databases, with the same suffix as an existing database.
> These hidden databases would never be selected by select_backend(), so
> they would never be used to satisfy any incoming requests. They would
> only serve as platforms for configuring syncrepl consumers. This would
> allow multiple replication targets to be configured using a single
> slapd. Any objections?
I think it's a great idea; it would also solve the issue with syncrepl
that we can't use it when the master is behind a firewall that doesn't
allow LDAP connections inwards.
I'm setting up a 3 slapd test (test045) that checks this. I note that
it works just fine with the "consumer" overlay on the back-ldap and the
"slurprov" overlay on the slave...
p.
Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
Responsabile Open Solution
SysNet s.n.c.
Via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
http://www.sys-net.it
------------------------------------------
Office: +39.02.23998309
Mobile: +39.333.4963172
Email: pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it
------------------------------------------