Re: FW: AW: referrals (not using ManageDsaIT correctly)

[Dan Shriver <dshriver@sharemedia.com>]

Yeah, I read about partitions (and wrote a rephrase of my
earlier post) before I read yours.  I see I have made a
conceptual mistake, so let me rephrase myself- How do I manage a
partitioned system with openLDAP?  Shouldn't the referral object
cause my entries to be added to the correct 'box' (or collection
of boxes)?  Right now the system tells me it has added the
entries but I don't see them in searching the master (fine) and
I don't see them in searching the slave (I have a problem with
that).

Do I necessarily need to implement a multiple master system in
order to partition (probably the final directory I work on will
have a mix of partitioning and replication)?
If so am I in for trouble (some of the posts here indicate
multiple master openLDAP is a bit problematic)? 
 
> In the broader context of services derived from the X.500
model, it would
> be possible for any server to chase down the appropriate
target as your
> proxy, but not all implementations will do that.  And those
that do will
> do what the client would have done.  It has nothing to do with
> replication.

Hmmm.  I have a dangerous question to ask and open source
newsgroup- I'm planning to do prototype work both in openLDAP
and Netscape's LDAP (I started on openLDAP simply because, after
using some of Netscape's other products (IMAP, browser...) I was
left with a distinctly bad taste), in part to try both products
out, and in part because some of our customers may be anti open
source).  Does anyone know if Netscape's implementation is
easier to use for a scenario like the one I describe (mix of
partitioning and replication)?