Hello John, Friday, November 18, 2005, 9:23:17 PM, you wrote:
>> Does the FAQ entry about multi-master replication* need to be updated? >> What about the draft "LDAP Multi-master Replication Considered Harmful"? >> >> In fact I'd like to know if multi-master replication with syncrepl can be >> considered as sure or if it is harmful too. > I only use sycnrepl to achieve high availability (by combining with > heartbeat), I > haven't tested it as a true multi-master environment. It just seems likely > to me > that it might work, but I don't have the time personally to mess with it. > Please > do feel free to try it out. :) Personally, I agree with Zeilenga's draft. > I can't think of a situation in which multi-master replication would actually > make > any sense anyway. (The closest scenario I can think of is a load-balanced > configuration, but even then, you can't rely on each side of the cluster to > be up > to date at any given point in time since replication is asynchronous.) I have situation: Two offices are connected by low-speed channel. On both offices I have users, that want change their password without my assistance (by Samba, for example). If I'll setup Samba from office with slave use master LDAP server, speed will be slow... > John > -- > John Madden > UNIX Systems Engineer > Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Best regards, Sergey mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
