(questions to Mark Wood's reply) Re: Partitioning questions II

[Dan Shriver <dshriver@sharemedia.com>]

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Dan Shriver wrote:
> > Is a multi-master set up necessary for partitioning?
> 
> Master/slave has nothing to do with partitioning.  Every
partition has a
> master.  The words you want for partitioning are
superior/inferior.

Ok, so if I have a directory with partitions A, B, and C (with A
being the top of the tree and B and C being delegated subtrees),
then what you are saying is that A, B, and C each have a master
in charge of that partition (and possibly some slaves containing
a replica of that partition).  Isn't this then a multi-master
setup, or is it that this is a meta-directory (A points to sub
directories) and it is not considered multimaster because each
master operates on a seperate domain?

Is it absolutely necessary for each partition to have a master?
 
> > Does partitioning follow referrals (to determine where to
> > add/delete/search/modify) if not what should I use?
> 
> The client follows referrals, some of which facilitate
partitioning.

I'm still confused. ldapmodify is a client call, right, and "-C"
tells it to follow referrals- so why doesn't my entry my entry
get added to the subtree?
 
> 'updatedn' is what causes a slave to *allow* updates from its
master.

Yeah, on my earlier (replication) trial an add to the master was
passed down (using the binddn - updatedn) to the slave.  I just
assumed that partitions worked by the same mechanism (with the
referral being used to restrict which boxes got added to). 
Obviously this is not the case, but I still do not know what IS
the way it works.

How do I populate my directory (or directories, as the case may
be (since it seems you are suggesting I need to setup a
meta-directory to get partitioning to work))?
 
>    http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin/referrals.html

I've read this about 10 times.  It is what I am using.
 
> Please, your terminology is confusing.  "Master" doesn not
mean "top of
> the referral tree".

Sorry, it is just that the top of my tree lives in the master. 
I know that master does not mean "top of tree" but I was
(wrongly) assuming that a delegated tree could have one master
(containing either the top of the tree and referrals to the
distributed parts, or just the referrals).

How then do I set things up?

		A
	      1 2 3
	     /     \
	    B       C
	  4 5 6    7 8 9

A is the master of its partition and (if they exist) 1, 2, & 3
are slaves that contain replica's of A... same thing for B and C
where they are distinct partitions (and delegated subtrees of
A).  How do I populate and maintain this directory?  Are you
saying that A, B, and C are initially set up on their own, and
then "glued" together using superior/inferior referrals?  Can I
"add" entries to A, and if it doesn't own the partition I'm
adding to it passes the add on with some kind of binddn (similar
to replication).  Is this A, B, C setup considered muti-master
(or is multi-master just something like this:

		A B
	      1 2 3 4 

Where A and B are both masters and 1... 4 are replicas.  All
(A... 4) contain the same info.

Are you saying that to get my system to work I simply have to
turn off the master slave relationship between A, B and C (for
the earlier A, B, C example) and then each of them is its own
master (and then hopefully the "-C" sends the add to a master
with ability to write to itself)

-Dan