[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: poor performance of OpenLDAP vs AD?
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 11:19 +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> >> On the other hand, there seems to be
> >> much overhead concerned with additional data that goes around to keep
> >> this multimaster state in sync.
> > And here is where the argument really falls down - all else is Not
> > equal, their replication protocol requires a huge amount of metadata to
> > maintain synchronization for each update.
> Thanks for all your input.
> Perhaps it's my last concern.
> In a multi-master case, we can modify/add/delete entries even when the
> physical connection between the servers is broken (WAN/VPN down etc.).
> After the connection is back, they will sync according to some alghoritm
> (mostly timestamps, and if they happen to be equal, then the
> "supermaster" overwrites all other changes).
> In a master-slave scenario, when the connection to a master is broken,
> we can't make any updates/modifications on a slave, which sometimes can
> be a major drawback.
> Or perhaps it's possible to configure OpenLDAP in a way, that we can
> "temporarily" edit slave database when the connection to the master is
> broken, and when the connection is back, changes are sent to the master,
> which in turn decides on what to do with it?
I am very interested in a solution where we would have a highly
available Master server. How can I achieve that? Turning a slave to a
master using a automatic mechanism when the master seems to be the only
option. Am I correct?