--On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 10:39 AM +0400 Jephte Clain
<[email protected]> wrote:
Le 28/12/2015 19:12, Quanah Gibson-Mount a écrit :
I'm not sure to understand what you are saying.
the "master" and the "slaves" are identical, and the cn=config are the
same on all hosts
so they are truly replicates, right?
No. Replicas do not accept writes. Replicas do not have a master
configuration for cn=config. Replica's do not have server IDs.
In fact, the configuration is generated by a script I wrote several years
ago, and all databases for a "master" configuration are generated with a
syncprov overlay and a syncrepl directive, to enable "seed replication":
After the problems I had, I took the time to read the admin guide again
and noticed the accesslog database was not to be replicated, or it seemed
so
I then wondered if the replication I configured on the accesslog database
was the cause for my issues...
hence my question to be sure I understood correctly
Accesslog is unique to a given master.
Here is another question: if an accesslog database is stricly local to a
server, how should two masters in mirror mode be configured?
I have a bi-master setup with an active/passive configuration: the
loadbalancer only send the requests to the first master, unless it stop
responding.
if the first master crashes, and writes are diriged toward the second
master, won't I lose the accesslog informations?
Every master must have a unique server ID. Each master will replicate the
writes from another master, and update their accesslog accordingly. You
will not lose any writes.
I'm guessing your configurations are generally incorrect.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Platform Architect
Zimbra, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
