On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Le 7/17/12 12:28 AM, Alex Karasulu a écrit : > >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> >>> I was pretty much thinking that we could store those informations in a >>> plain text file, but that would be a bit overkilling, when we can store >>> them in a the DIT too. Maybe storing those information sinto the >>> ou=config >>> entry could be the right thing to do, assuming that the ou=config is not >>> replicated (we will only replicate what's under ou=config, ie, its >>> children) >>> >>> >>> Please please please let's not fuck with this. This is the worst idea >> I've >> heard of yet. We don't need another one off here. >> > That was just a suggestion, but I do agree this is more a hack than > anything else. Thank you for seeing this. This would create a nightmare for us in other areas. This is why I sort of freaked. > Plus after having checked the ou=config file, I don't even thinhk it's > necessary. > > Coolio. > I totally buy the fact that implementing partial replication would solve > the issue. > > Yeah I think this will help us a great deal. I think we need fractional and partial replication. We will still want to replicate some entries but not all of their attributes, this is where fractional replication comes in handy. > The ou=config DIT starts with : > > version: 1 > dn: ou=config > ou: config > objectclass: top > objectclass: organizationalUnit > > dn: ads-directoryServiceId=**default,ou=config > objectclass: top > objectclass: ads-directoryService > ads-directoryserviceid: default > ads-dsreplicaid: 1 > ... > > As we can see, each configuration is specific to a service, here > "default". If we correctly name the instances so that there is no possible > confusion between them, then we should be safe even if we replicate > everything. > > Da, Da, Da! > The thing we have to solve is about the instance name : how dos the server > get its instance name ? > > I don't have an answer for this just yet but I am sure we can figure something out. In addition to instance name we can also perhaps have an instance UUID to disambiguate collisions. > I must admit that, even if I worked on those thing in the past, it's not > really fresh in my mind... > > Think about where I am ;). Right now I'm completely driving off intuition. Thanks for the very awesome logical response to my minor freak out. -- Best Regards, -- Alex
