[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#4778) Problem using Berkeley DB replication in OpenLDAP
- To: çæ(Seuler.shi) <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: (ITS#4778) Problem using Berkeley DB replication in OpenLDAP
- From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:34:14 -0800
- Cc: email@example.com
- Content-disposition: inline
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <200612140152.kBE1qafh068786@boole.openldap.org> <49B8FA26B38E108C2DFF7975@SW-90-717-287-3.stanford.edu> <email@example.com>
--On Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:27 PM +0800 "çæ(Seuler.shi)"
Because the replication features provided by OpenLDAP do not
meet our software requirement.
If there are N slaves and 1 master in a replication group in
BDB, once the master crashes, a new
master will be elected by BDB and the replication group can
still work well. All the parameters
concerning master election in BDB can be configured by user.
This will be more portable.
As the replication mechanism reaches synchronizations by
transferring write requests to the replicas,
this may be less efficient compared with BDB replication. So
we need to compare these two method.
Would you tell me why OpenLDAP do not support BDB
BDB replication mechanism will operate slave databases
directly without inform the upper layer LDAP.
The information such as index, ID and so on maintained by
OpenLDAP may be inconsistent with the
content of database. I try to mend the source code of
OpenLDAP to let every "ldapsearch" operation
find entry info in database directly, but I failed:(
I am expecting your comments.
Because they aren't compatible. I'm guessing standby master may more meet
your needs, which will be a part of OpenLDAP 2.4.
Principal Software Developer
ITS/Shared Application Services
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html