On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 11:13 -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > > --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 too far out of date, it will even completely reload itself.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. >
I have a small question regarding syncrepl: are there some kind of logs that show the replication talking place, the failures, ...? Thanks. -- Sam
