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

Re: Syncrep problem or bug? (openldap 2.2.11)

> El vie, 25 de jun de 2004, a las 07:28, Quanah Gibson-Mount escribio:
>> --On Friday, June 25, 2004 9:16 AM +0200 "Lozano, Carlos A."
>> <clozano@andago.com> wrote:
>> >El jue, 24 de jun de 2004, a las 09:35, Jong-Hyuk escribio:
>> >>The syncrepl replication performs entry-level replication, but not in
>> >>attribute level.
>> >>Both the master entry and the replica entry should start from the same
>> >>origin. (database dump of master)
>> >
>> >I need that the slave will have the same classes than the
>> >master + other addicional, is it possible using the openldap
>> >replication??
>> Why would you want to do that?  Replica's are designed to be mirrors or
>> submirrors of the master.  To have a replica that contains *more*
>> information than the master is a basic violation of the entire
>> master/replica principle.  Your master should contain all the data that
>> you
>> will be publishing.
> We want that the master server will have the common classes, but what
> every local ldap admin can add in his own local ldap addicional classes.
> It looks like that the only way is back-meta?

What you want to do looks dangerous to me; it may make some sense to have
one single server host both a common denominator of your system plus some
local information, so that it represents a single entry point for queries
that span both; but I'd use separate naming contexts for those entities,
or at least separate branches of a common tree.  You could think of
something like

database bdb
suffix "dc=local,dc=naming,dc=context"
# ... for local stuff

database ldap
suffix "dc=common,dc=naming,dc=context"
# to proxy common stuff

You may even think of glueing this stuff together, by adding a
subordinate directive to each database, and putting a

database bdb
suffix "dc=local,dc=naming,dc=context"
# ... for local stuff

database ldap
suffix "dc=common,dc=naming,dc=context"
# to proxy common stuff

database bdb
suffix "dc=naming,dc=context"
# to glue things together

but then you need to make sure that only the
"dc=common,dc=naming,dc=context" is replicated.
I don't know if this is currently possible either
with slurpd or syncrepl for glued databases;
I should check in detail.

In any case, you definitely shouldn't mix local
and common stuff in one database/naming context,
especially in a "replica" (which is not just a
replica any more!).


Pierangelo Masarati

    SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497