[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Partitioning questions II

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Dan Shriver wrote:
> Is a multi-master set up necessary for partitioning?

Master/slave has nothing to do with partitioning.  Every partition has a
master.  The words you want for partitioning are superior/inferior.

> Does partitioning follow referrals (to determine where to
> add/delete/search/modify) if not what should I use?

The client follows referrals, some of which facilitate partitioning.
Partitioning is not an entity and cannot follow anything -- it is only an
administrative choice.

> Why (after setting up referrals (which I am assuming allow the
> master to find/modify info on the slaves containing delegated

'updateref' is what the slave uses to *decline* updates from clients.
'updatedn' is what causes a slave to *allow* updates from its master.
Neither has anything to do with partitioning, if this is what you mean by
"setting up referrals".  There is a completely different type of referral
for partitioning, described in:


> info), and using ldapmodify with -C flag ("chase referrals") do
> I get:
> 	adding new entry...
> 	ldap_add: Referral
> 	matched DN: ...
> But nothing is added to the slave (or the master- not that it
> should go to the master)?

Please, your terminology is confusing.  "Master" doesn not mean "top of
the referral tree".  Referral chasing should not attempt to update a
slave, and any slave receiving an update request should refuse it.  Slaves
receive updates *only* from masters.  A client should direct update
requests to the master for the target object's partition.  After an
interval, the updated information will be replicated to the slaves (if
there are any for that partition).

Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   mwood@IUPUI.Edu
Make a good day.