[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Failover Failure Advice
100 ldap clients is tiny. Why would you need 100 replicas? Seems
massively overkill to me. If you want a couple of replicas for failover
and load distribution create a few replicas. You shouldn't need one
replica per client...
--On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:40 PM -0800 Anton Chu
I currently have a Master/Slave Failover setup and I'm planning to deploy
100 ldap clients soon. I'm thinking about installing a Slave LDAP
Server in all my ldap clients. I'm sure this will bog down the
network but can I program syncrepl to be less chatty between master and
slave? I'm planning to point 60 of my clients to the master while the
rest will point to the slave. Your thoughts?
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:22 PM, jekvb <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 14:43 -0800, Anton Chu wrote:
I've setup a master and slave ldap service for failover;
My failover construction is a bit different, but it works quite nicely,
so I 'd like to share this.
For a simple and reliable failover I have two LDAP servers in Mirror
mode with Keepalived on top of it. This is based on having one virtual
IP for both machines. When the one LDAP server (master) that has the IP,
fails, all read & write operations are directed to the backup server.
When the failed LDAP server comes up again it takes over the IP again
and SyncRepl on the slave takes care of updating the master.
Best regards, Kuba
Sr. Member of Technical Staff
A Division of VMware, Inc.
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration