Please stay on-list.
No means: your interpretation that it is multimaster requires updatedn to be
On Tuesday 22 July 2008 10:41:18 Liutauras Adomaitis wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Buchan Milne <email@example.com>
> > On Monday 21 July 2008 14:48:23 Liutauras Adomaitis wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Buchan Milne <
> > firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 20 July 2008 23:34:03 Liutauras Adomaitis wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > It shows, that it is adding MirrorMode TRUE. So why?
> > > >
> > > > The configuration directive may have been overloaded when
> > > > multi-master was added (after mirrormode). AFAIK it allows the
> > > > database in question
> > to
> > > > both have a syncrepl directive, yet take updates from a DN besides
> > > > the updatedn (see the description on the slapd.conf man page).
> > >
> > > are you saying, that in multimaster configuration I have to have
> > > updatedn directive to be able to do writes?
> > No. Without mirrormode or multi-master, a slave would only accept updates
> > from
> > the updatedn. In multi-master, the master is also a slave, so it needs to
> > accept updates from any DN, while being configured as a slave (having
> > replication configuration).
> Sorry, but still don't get it. As you say node in multimaster configuration
> is master and slave at the same time. As a slave it can accept writes only
> having updatedn directive. Right?
> I'm really sorry if I don't understand, but it seems that "No" contradicts
> other sentences.
set is incorrect.
If you are that unspecific about the issues, we can't comment on your
> > > In thread "explain diff between multimaster and mirror mode" I found
> > > out, that mirrormode is kind of high availability implementation for
> > > openldap. In my case I want to have multimaster replication, which
> > > could allow me
> > to
> > > do writes to different master servers at a time.
> > You may want to think very carefully about why you want this, and not
> > mirrormode, or a single master.
> Yes maybe it is not necessary. I have read some posts saying the same -
> people do multimaster then they really don't need it at all. This is my
> first acquaintance with syncrepl and ldap replication, so I don't really
> know what is best for me. I tried master- slave, but it had some undisired
> side effects,
Exactly. Enabling "mirrormode" is a prerequisite for multimaster.
The difference between mirrormode an multimaster (as far as I know) these days
(post 2.4.6) is really your architecture (whether you allow writes to one
master, or more), not the configuration (though more than two syncrepl
statements does mean that it can't be mirrormode).
This is not the definition of multimaster. As far as I know, the recommended
> I have one central master, and other master are replicated from this one.
architecture for multimaster is that all masters can see (replicate from) each
other. Otherwise, they are locally writable slaves, with no guarantee of