[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...


Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
Responsabile Open Solution

SysNet s.n.c.
Via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
Office:   +39.02.23998309          
Mobile:   +39.333.4963172
Email:    pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it