[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: openldap-server-2.2.29: multimaster support
Saturday, November 19, 2005, 5:58:18 AM, you wrote:
> --On Friday, November 18, 2005 10:46 PM +0200 "Sergey A. Kobzar"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Hello John,
>> 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...
> I think that having two masters syncrepl from each other is still
> sufficient here. Since the password changes are going to go to the local
> master, there shouldn't be much risk of data collisions between the two
One user can present in one of offices.
Users don't have duplicates! ;)