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...