--On Monday, October 31, 2005 6:19 PM +0200 Chen Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I'm using Slurpd for openldap replication in order to have master-slave high availability in our production environment. I saw Syncrepl mentioned on this list as another method to have a replica of the directory. I've read about Syncrepl and how it works, but some parts of the picture are still missing: 1. Is there any reason to change from Slurpd to Syncrepl? Syncrepl has a much more complicated protocol, but in what ways is it preferable to Slurpd?
Syncrepl allows a slave to catch up from a given point in time to the master, without the master having to initiate anything. If the slave is too far out of date, it will even completely reload itself. With slurpd, you have to suffer a continually growing replication log while a slave is offline.
2. Are there any good reasons or situations where I should not use Syncrepl?
A heavy write environment. The current implementation of syncrepl only does complete entry replacement, rather than doing change delta's to the existing entry. This will hopefully be fixed in 2.3.12 with the introduction of delta-syncrepl.
3. Does Syncrepl overcome any of Slurpd limitations? Can I have two servers each replicating the other, so I can have a multi-master environment with much easier failover?
See #1, yes, it does, for your first question. On the second part, I believe some people have been doing things like that.
--Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Developer ITSS/Shared Services Stanford University GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html
