matthew sporleder wrote:
On 11/21/05, Pierangelo Masarati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This would yield two advantages:
1) reduce by 1 the number of sync propagations in the typical case of no
conflicts
2) make the change immediately available on the server that received the
request
(dam'd: I
At 10:05 AM 11/21/2005, John Madden wrote:
>Uhm, I believe we're now OT, at least for -software. :)
As the list moderator, I agree with this. I intend to put
the brakes on this thread. Those who want to continue
general discussion of MMR should take it elsewhere.
Kurt
> Maybe we could use something like this:
> - the chain overlay attaches a control to the chained write that
> contains the entryUUID and the entryCSN
> - the producer processes the write; upon success, if the entryUUID and
> the entryCSN were the same, it returns a control response value that
> in
On 11/21/05, Pierangelo Masarati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 17:38 +0100, Raphaël Ouazana-Sustowski wrote:
> > On Lun 21 novembre 2005 17:28, John Madden wrote:
> > >> Some of your customers may have been tricked into believing they need
> > >> LB. If you mean LB on writes,
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 17:38 +0100, Raphaël Ouazana-Sustowski wrote:
> On Lun 21 novembre 2005 17:28, John Madden wrote:
> >> Some of your customers may have been tricked into believing they need
> >> LB. If you mean LB on writes, that IS PURE NONSENSE. The number of
> >> writes on each of the ser
On Lun 21 novembre 2005 17:28, John Madden wrote:
>> Some of your customers may have been tricked into believing they need
>> LB. If you mean LB on writes, that IS PURE NONSENSE. The number of
>> writes on each of the servers (either masters or slaves) will ever be
>> the same no matter how many
> Some of your customers may have been tricked into believing they need
> LB. If you mean LB on writes, that IS PURE NONSENSE. The number of
> writes on each of the servers (either masters or slaves) will ever be
> the same no matter how many write entry points you provide (unless you
> believe r
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 17:02 +0100, Raphaël Ouazana-Sustowski wrote:
> On Lun 21 novembre 2005 16:35, John Madden wrote:
> >> Ok, so syncrepl does not seem to be a good idea in the case of two
> >> masters
> >> in different places. What about the case of two load-balanced masters?
> >> Will syncrep
On Lun 21 novembre 2005 16:35, John Madden wrote:
>> Ok, so syncrepl does not seem to be a good idea in the case of two
>> masters
>> in different places. What about the case of two load-balanced masters?
>> Will syncrepl garantee that the data are the same on the two master? Or
>> is
>> it just a
>> To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a multi-master implementation on
>> the
>> market that will allow you to load balance a directory and actually
>> guarantee that
>> two clients running down two different nodes will get a consistent view of
>> an
>> object. Do you know of one?
>
> Maybe
> Ok, so syncrepl does not seem to be a good idea in the case of two masters
> in different places. What about the case of two load-balanced masters?
> Will syncrepl garantee that the data are the same on the two master? Or is
> it just as old multimaster code: it push (in fact pull) the modificat
On Lun 21 novembre 2005 10:43, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
>
>> Ok, so syncrepl does not seem to be a good idea in the case of two
>> masters
>> in different places. What about the case of two load-balanced masters?
>
> could you clarify the definition of "two load-balanced masters"? I don't
> thi
On Dim 20 novembre 2005 17:46, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 08:23 -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
>> > What if the network is down for two days, and the first day one at one
>> > site needs to change the password, because it's expiring, and the
>> > following day his passw
> On Lun 21 novembre 2005 10:43, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, so syncrepl does not seem to be a good idea in the case of two
>>> masters
>>> in different places. What about the case of two load-balanced masters?
>>
>> could you clarify the definition of "two load-balanced masters"? I
>>
> Ok, so syncrepl does not seem to be a good idea in the case of two masters
> in different places. What about the case of two load-balanced masters?
could you clarify the definition of "two load-balanced masters"? I don't
think anything like that exists.
> Will syncrepl garantee that the data
On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 08:23 -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> > What if the network is down for two days, and the first day one at one
> > site needs to change the password, because it's expiring, and the
> > following day his password expires so at the other site it gets locked
> > and other po
--On Sunday, November 20, 2005 2:35 PM +0100 Pierangelo Masarati
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One user can present in one of offices.
> Users don't have duplicates! ;)
I think that is the point I was making? :)
What if the network is down for two days, and the first day one at one
site ne
> > One user can present in one of offices.
> > Users don't have duplicates! ;)
>
> I think that is the point I was making? :)
What if the network is down for two days, and the first day one at one
site needs to change the password, because it's expiring, and the
following day his password expire
--On Saturday, November 19, 2005 12:22 PM +0200 "Sergey A. Kobzar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
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* n
--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 H
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
>> co
> 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 ach
On Jeu 10 novembre 2005 16:23, John Madden wrote:
>> P.S. I know that multimaster mode is not officially supported, but in
>> past I could enable this feature.
>
> Why not go to Openldap 2.3 and use syncrepl (on both systems) to
> accomplish this?
> It seems safer IMO than truly multi-master, which
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Sergey A. Kobzar wrote:
Hello Dusty,
Sorry for big delay.
I've successfully setuped and configured OpenLDAP 2.3 from current
ports tree. Also I've rebuilt software, depended from LDAP libraries:
Apache2 + Subversion
Exim
ProFTPD
I prefer build software from ports on Free
Hello Dusty,
Sorry for big delay.
I've successfully setuped and configured OpenLDAP 2.3 from current
ports tree. Also I've rebuilt software, depended from LDAP libraries:
Apache2 + Subversion
Exim
ProFTPD
I prefer build software from ports on FreeBSD. To change default
dependencies for software
John Madden wrote:
>>>patch -p0 < ../openldap-2.3.x/build/BerkeleyDB42.patch
>>
>>Just of note, if OpenLDAP 2.3.12 ever gets released, the above patch will
>>no longer be necessary for BDB 4.2. :P
>
>
> Will BDB need to be rebuilt *without* that patch to upgrade a 2.3.11 install
> to
> 2.3.12?
>> patch -p0 < ../openldap-2.3.x/build/BerkeleyDB42.patch
>
> Just of note, if OpenLDAP 2.3.12 ever gets released, the above patch will
> no longer be necessary for BDB 4.2. :P
Will BDB need to be rebuilt *without* that patch to upgrade a 2.3.11 install to
2.3.12?
John
--
John Madden
UNIX S
--On Friday, November 11, 2005 2:15 PM -0500 Dusty Doris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So install openldap 2.3 from source so you can continue to use openldap
2.2 from ports w/ the other packages that depend on it.
patch -p0 < ../openldap-2.3.x/build/BerkeleyDB42.patch
Just of note, if
So install openldap 2.3 from source so you can continue to use openldap 2.2
from ports w/ the other packages that depend on it.
Just in case you try to do this, I thought I'd add my notes for you from
when I did it on FreeBSD 5.4.
1. Download Bekeley DB 4.2 w/ the 4 patches from sleepycat
Sorry, I've just joined this mailing list.
I can't use 2.3 and syncrepl because:
1. FreeBSD has many dependences on OpenLDAP 2.2, that I use.
2. It hard to update second host - it has RedHat 9.0, old compiler, etc...
So install openldap 2.3 from source so you can continue to use openldap
2.2
On Thursday 10 November 2005 21:31, Sergey A. Kobzar wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> Thursday, November 10, 2005, 5:23:17 PM, you wrote:
> >> P.S. I know that multimaster mode is not officially supported, but in
> >> past I could enable this feature.
> >
> > Why not go to Openldap 2.3 and use syncrepl (on
> I can't use 2.3 and syncrepl because:
> 1. FreeBSD has many dependences on OpenLDAP 2.2, that I use.
> 2. It hard to update second host - it has RedHat 9.0, old compiler, etc...
Both of these should compile a 2.3 build nicely...?
John
--
John Madden
UNIX Systems Engineer
Ivy Tech Community
Hello John,
Thursday, November 10, 2005, 5:23:17 PM, you wrote:
>> P.S. I know that multimaster mode is not officially supported, but in
>> past I could enable this feature.
> Why not go to Openldap 2.3 and use syncrepl (on both systems) to accomplish
> this?
> It seems safer IMO than truly mul
> How can you avoid a loop situation if you use syncrepl on both machines ?
I believe you don't have to worry about loops with syncrepl. Don't take my word
for it, try it out...
John
--
John Madden
UNIX Systems Engineer
Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
;OpenLDAP software list" ,
"Sergey A.
Kobzar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Objet : Re: openldap-server-2.2.29: multimaster support
> P.S. I know that multimaster mode is not officially supported, but in
> past I could enable this feature.
Why not go to Openldap 2.3 and use syn
> P.S. I know that multimaster mode is not officially supported, but in
> past I could enable this feature.
Why not go to Openldap 2.3 and use syncrepl (on both systems) to accomplish
this?
It seems safer IMO than truly multi-master, which as has been discussed
repeatedly
here, isn't a good ide
Hello.
I need to switch from openldap-2.0.27-8 (based on RedHat 9) to
openldap-server-2.2.29 (based on FreeBSD 5.4).
In past on openldap-2.0.27-8 multimaster support was enabled like
described in http://hannibal.solstice.nl/ldap/ldap-multiserver.html.
It worked fine.
Yesterday I tried patch conf
38 matches
Mail list logo
