Howard Chu wrote:
Of course, referrals and chaining are probably the worst-performing
way to accomplish what you want.
Seems like any other way will lead to additional database (of type
relay, ldap or meta) per served suffix. Or maybe slapo-glue or slapo-rwm
will help here?
Glueing subordinates is an obvious approach. (Note that early 2.3
releases changed the glue syntax from the one used in OpenLDAP
2.1-2.2. The current 2.3.7 release restores the old syntax, and
slapo-glue is no longer a separate module. It is integrated back into
the slapd core, just like it was in OpenLDAP 2.1 and 2.2.) The relay
database would be a good alternative. Either one should work well for
this situation.
In your case I think you need to go with a decision: if you intend to
have all bases and sync them programmatically, the best solution would
likely be to use separate databases and glue them together. If all you
need is present one set of data under different naming contexts to work
around application limitations of for other reasons (logically present
data under a different naming context) back-relay would be an option; it
would definitely save some programmatical administration headaches
because there wouldn't be data duplication. From your message I suspect
you need a mix of the two; in that case maybe you better glue the
physical databases, and add back-relays out of the glued tree. Note
that currently you shouldn't use slapo-rwm in a glued database.
p.
SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497
