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

Re: slurpd's disaster recovery capability

To: Sung Ho Jee <jee.sung@ansaldo-signal.com.au>
Subject: Re: slurpd's disaster recovery capability
From: matthew sporleder <msporleder@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:29:29 -0400
Cc: OpenLDAP-software@OpenLDAP.org
Content-disposition: inline
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Wm5aI8X4iztiWaDirg9UFhHfTOKxxk6kMgnNWTR5RuOk0oLaSGpsPQ+dbv85FIR/oKa/IkF3/pipfRIjWnNdi0qE4DWS5CUgkugaP+RlIYntIK75QxyfaVeZPIVwsLg6vKswWeo24CqqT5V+Ff513FFpnlE/z7rCUJMrJw1boC4=
In-reply-to: <OFF0C53657.7366BBB6-ON4825702E.002F3906@wa>
References: <OFF0C53657.7366BBB6-ON4825702E.002F3906@wa>

I think it would be easier for you to use a transactional backend on
the master (bdb) and use syncrepl for more reliable slave-updates. 
That way, if the master powers down, updates can be initiated by the
slaves when the master comes back up.

I find the integrity of slurpd-written replicas to be about 98% when
the master server is fully powered up, so I don't like to think about
power outages.  :)

On 6/28/05, Sung Ho Jee <jee.sung@ansaldo-signal.com.au> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am investigating whether openLDAP is suitable for our production use.
> 
> My question is, if the machine running the master slapd instance is powered
> down in the middle of replication by slurpd to various slave slapd
> instances, would slurpd attempt to complete the replication upon restart?
> i.e. Does the replication implementation guarantee that all slaves will
> come into sync with the master in this case?
>

References:
- slurpd's disaster recovery capability
  - From: "Sung Ho Jee" <jee.sung@ansaldo-signal.com.au>

Prev by Date: Re: Comparing slapcat output
Next by Date: Re: Comparing slapcat output
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread