[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Syncrepl vs. replication

To: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
Subject: Re: Syncrepl vs. replication
From: matthew sporleder <msporleder@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:01:52 -0400
Cc: OpenLDAP Software List <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
Content-disposition: inline
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Effv9u8bvJWNyEP3tviG1WjhsF0iI16CXhcXRGs95l/pVICArrLC+5557JSvry7WGAWcHwVdrM9+HGWNdSqUbW3NHR0YrKLXl3i1MtKdlulj/xa0LbutVweEGlY+irs3d9mmoDYSWuE7e4KVL8if2ODUclChWHlIM0FCppURuzA=
In-reply-to: <429D1A1B.6090507@symas.com>
References: <20050601101348.J59704@mippet.ci.com.au> <429D1A1B.6090507@symas.com>

Wouldn't this require at least one back-dbd/back-hdb server to be
configured?  Or am I misunderstanding the second part of this
statement (from the 2.2 admin guide):

While slapd (8) can function as the LDAP Sync provider only when it is
configured with either back-bdb or back-hdb backend, the syncrepl
engine, which is a consumer-side replication engine, can work with any
backends.

I read this to mean the "master", which provides the info for syncing,
must run one of those backends?

> The slurpd replication mechanism probably ran out of steam a long time
> ago. I'm on the verge of completely replacing it with syncrepl in 2.3,
> as slurpd itself is not viable in the dynamic config environment.
>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Syncrepl vs. replication
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Re: Syncrepl vs. replication
  - From: Ralf Haferkamp <rhafer@suse.de>

References:
- Syncrepl vs. replication
  - From: Dave Horsfall <daveh@ci.com.au>
- Re: Syncrepl vs. replication
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>

Prev by Date: Question about launching Windows-OpenLDAP as a windows service
Next by Date: Re: Syncrepl vs. replication
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread