[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Multiple syncrepl problems
>>>>> "Howard" == Howard Chu <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Howard> However, the fact remains that even in older
Howard> releases, you must have a rootdn defined on the consumer
Howard> database, because it is needed for internal maintenance.
'internal maintenance' - such as!? I haven't had a rootdn since 1.3.something
(which was YEARS ago), and from what I can tell, everything (!) have worked
Howard> I'm inclined to remove the multiple-consumer-context
Howard> support, as it seems to be causing more hassles than it's
Howard> worth. With that removed, then only a rootdn would be
Howard> needed and no updatedn at all.
Ah, so it WAS that the thread on -devel meant! PLEASE (pretty, pretty
PLEASE) don't remove multiple-consumers! I was just about to start
implementing (or at least testing - syncrepl is now operational on
all my LDAP servers/sites) this (I need it!!).
I have a number of LDAP sites (each 'site' consisting of multiple
LDAP servers) I'm administrating. My company is one of those sites
(my personal LDAP servers are another). My company is offering a
'LDAP hosting' service (with live backups etc). I'd like to have a
hidden machine that syncs from (all those) LDAP server(s) into one slapd
process (but multiple databases/directories I guess).
That way it's easy to get the broken LDAP server up and running in a
very short time (slapcat on the hidden machine etc).
Sure, setting up one slapd for each replication works to if you absolutely
MUST remove multiple-consumer support but one is (way) easier to maintain...