Hello Quanah, Saturday, November 19, 2005, 5:58:18 AM, you wrote:
> --On Friday, November 18, 2005 10:46 PM +0200 "Sergey A. Kobzar" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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... > I think that having two masters syncrepl from each other is still > sufficient here. Since the password changes are going to go to the local > master, there shouldn't be much risk of data collisions between the two > sites. One user can present in one of offices. Users don't have duplicates! ;) -- Best regards, Sergey mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
