[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: openldap-server-2.2.29: multimaster support
Friday, November 18, 2005, 9:23:17 PM, you wrote:
>> Does the FAQ entry about multi-master replication* need to be updated?
>> What about the draft "LDAP Multi-master Replication Considered Harmful"?
>> In fact I'd like to know if multi-master replication with syncrepl can be
>> considered as sure or if it is harmful too.
> I only use sycnrepl to achieve high availability (by combining with heartbeat), I
> haven't tested it as a true multi-master environment. It just seems likely to me
> that it might work, but I don't have the time personally to mess with it. Please
> do feel free to try it out. :) Personally, I agree with Zeilenga's draft.
> I can't think of a situation in which multi-master replication would actually make
> any sense anyway. (The closest scenario I can think of is a load-balanced
> configuration, but even then, you can't rely on each side of the cluster to be up
> to date at any given point in time since replication is asynchronous.)
I have situation:
Two offices are connected by low-speed channel. On both offices I have
users, that want change their password without my assistance (by
Samba, for example).
If I'll setup Samba from office with slave use master LDAP server,
speed will be slow...
> John Madden
> UNIX Systems Engineer
> Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana