Darren Gamble <darren.gamble@sjrb.ca> wrote:
> thought we'd give that a try. We brought up a fresh 2.2.20 consumer
> against the 2.2.19 provider, but no entries get replicated at all. The
and Quanah wrote:
My own opinion is I would wait for OpenLDAP 2.3 to use syncRepl. Note
that a number of bugs I discovered in syncRepl in 2.3 were fixed in OL
2.2.20 as well by Howard Chu, so you may want to look at upgrading.
We use syncRepl in production, but I'll admit to quite a bit of teething.
(This is well documented in the OpenLDAP ITS.) To blame any one bug would
be misleadingly simplistic, but with that caveat, running the fix from
slapd/sl_malloc.c rev 1.23 on the provider cleared our show-stopper.
You're more fortunate than I was in that 2.2.20 includes that fix off the
shelf.
I note that you kept your provider 2.2.19. I'd try everything as 2.2.20,
and go from there. It might also be prudent to reload your slave databases
once you've got 2.2.20 squared away, just in case any of the previous
syncRepl bugs somehow resulted in inaccurate data.
The 2.3 syncRepl improvements look interesting. Then again, my build of
2.3.0alpha failed "make test," but it looks like that might already be
cleared in HEAD. Hopefully we'll have a few more 2.3 alpha cycles that
keep syncRepl in a good working state. (Although personally, I'm now so
happy with 2.2.20, 2.3 will be a cautious move. I wouldn't have said that
a month ago.)