Re: Yet another replication problem.

[Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa <ildefonso.camargo@gmail.com>]

On 5/22/05, matthew sporleder <msporleder@gmail.com> wrote:
> Switching to sync-based replication may be the easiest way.
> 

Somebody told me that sync-repl has some problems, can somebody
confirm about this?

Thanks for your answer.

Sincerely,

> On 5/19/05, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa <ildefonso.camargo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I made a post several moths ago, but I still haven't solved the
> > problem.  I have a 25 replicas scenario, 5 of them are connected via
> > ethernet (directly), 20 of them are connected by frame relay
> > connections.
> >
> > I'm using openldap 2.2.23 and tried 2.2.24 (compiled from source) with
> > berkley db 4.2 (Official Debian Sarge packages).  I'm using 2.2.23
> >
> > I'm using slurp replication, and about 20 out of the 25 replicas work
> > just fine, but with 5 of them (one of wich is located in the local
> > network) I have "rejects", all of the rejects are related to a missing
> > previous replication (ie, at some point the directories gets
> > "out-of-sync", and from that time on, you get rejects like: No such
> > attribute (something like that) or no such object).  I know that 3 of
> > these sites has power failures wich are unavoidable (and thus can
> > cause problems).
> >
> > Does anybody have a deployment this big working?, I'm running out of
> > ideas (yes, I have a good cache size in the bdb (about 160Mb, the
> > computer has 2Gb, and the replicas has a 30Mb cache and 256Mb RAM)).
> > The directory is about 4000 objects in size.  I'm using samba with
> > ldap backend.
> >
> > Any ideas,
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Ildefonso Camargo
> > icamargo at merkurio dot com dot ve
> > icamargo AT unet dot edu dot ve
> > ildefonso_camargo AT yahoo dot com
> > ildefonso dot camargo at gmail dot com
> >
> 
> 
> --
> _Matt
>