Pierangelo Masarati wrote: > Gavin Henry wrote: > >>> yes, but according to [1] and other sources the current >>> implementation of >>> refreshAndPersist is not a pure push solution. It's still the slave >>> that >>> initiates the connection. To me it looked as I'd have to wait for 2.4. >>> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong as I might misinterpret the docs, however. Have >>> you tested this and confirmed it works? >> >> No, you are right. I misunderstood your requirement for a push based >> solution. > > I need to check, but what 2.4 does is provide a facility for push-like > sync-replication; however, the latest 2.3 should allow to proxy > syncrepl by means of a regular proxy. Namely, what test045 does > should be possible with 2.3 as well, at the cost of an extra instance > of slapd for proxying, while what test048 does requires something > specific to 2.4. > > Again: this needs to be checked, since 2.3 might still miss some details. > > > p.
thanks for the insights. What we're currently replicating to the slaves is not vital for the operation of the customer-facing services so I think we'd prefer not to add to the complexity more than what's required. Even though we're using virtualized hosts and adding one or two wouldn't be such a big deal. We've settled with using slurpd until the next upgrade round. But thanks anyways for the pointers, I'll check those tests out regardless. -- mike
