Re: what databases are to be replicated for a slave?

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com>]

--On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 10:39 AM +0400 Jephte Clain 
<jephte.clain@univ-reunion.fr> wrote:

> Le 28/12/2015 19:12, Quanah Gibson-Mount a écrit :

> I'm not sure to understand what you are saying.
> the "master" and the "slaves" are identical, and the cn=config are the
> same on all hosts
> so they are truly replicates, right?

No.  Replicas do not accept writes.  Replicas do not have a master 
configuration for cn=config.  Replica's do not have server IDs.

> In fact, the configuration is generated by a script I wrote several years
> ago, and all databases for a "master" configuration are generated with a
> syncprov overlay and a syncrepl directive, to enable "seed replication":

> After the problems I had, I took the time to read the admin guide again
> and noticed the accesslog database was not to be replicated, or it seemed
> so
> I then wondered if the replication I configured on the accesslog database
> was the cause for my issues...
> hence my question to be sure I understood correctly

Accesslog is unique to a given master.

> Here is another question: if an accesslog database is stricly local to a
> server, how should two masters in mirror mode be configured?
> I have a bi-master setup with an active/passive configuration: the
> loadbalancer only send the requests to the first master, unless it stop
> responding.
> if the first master crashes, and writes are diriged toward the second
> master, won't I lose the accesslog informations?

Every master must have a unique server ID.  Each master will replicate the 
writes from another master, and update their accesslog accordingly.  You 
will not lose any writes.

I'm guessing your configurations are generally incorrect.

--Quanah


--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Platform Architect
Zimbra, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration