[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Replication errors with slurpd and ppolicy
Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> Gavin Henry wrote:
>>> yes, but according to  and other sources the current
>>> implementation of
>>> refreshAndPersist is not a pure push solution. It's still the slave
>>> initiates the connection. To me it looked as I'd have to wait for 2.4.
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong as I might misinterpret the docs, however. Have
>>> you tested this and confirmed it works?
>> No, you are right. I misunderstood your requirement for a push based
> I need to check, but what 2.4 does is provide a facility for push-like
> sync-replication; however, the latest 2.3 should allow to proxy
> syncrepl by means of a regular proxy. Namely, what test045 does
> should be possible with 2.3 as well, at the cost of an extra instance
> of slapd for proxying, while what test048 does requires something
> specific to 2.4.
> Again: this needs to be checked, since 2.3 might still miss some details.
thanks for the insights.
What we're currently replicating to the slaves is not vital for the
operation of the customer-facing services so I think we'd prefer not to
add to the complexity more than what's required. Even though we're using
virtualized hosts and adding one or two wouldn't be such a big deal.
We've settled with using slurpd until the next upgrade round. But thanks
anyways for the pointers, I'll check those tests out regardless.