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

Re: syncrepl questions

To: shawnlkennedy@lucent.com
Subject: Re: syncrepl questions
From: FRLinux <frlinux@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 20:14:48 +0100
Cc: 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=PZ1YNzXZRIdvzWe2pgwmtrEc10o0lGteoLRXjQbgM71RbNoZ8ZignXDOA5DJC7UJLWvTzXoI+9Ep0J0HlBKtZOt0+ftlIp9AzUF6yuqxAh/HhYrMan1X/C+jLyVZI7K5SXF68dkpWZ6ZrrFFu5UmgWrOBH37xyfTUrf0JhwRmMU=
In-reply-to: <NEBBLNBDCLDILGOPJLGIKENCEAAA.shawnlkennedy@lucent.com>
References: <a8139f9905053111092e822ba2@mail.gmail.com> <NEBBLNBDCLDILGOPJLGIKENCEAAA.shawnlkennedy@lucent.com>

On 6/1/05, Shawn Kennedy <shawnlkennedy@lucent.com> wrote:
> it make more sense to run the LDAP servers as master/master with them
> replicating to each other?  Is this even possible?  If not, what
> did you do to manually stage them back and forth as Master/slave?
> Did you have to stop LDAP, swap out the slapd config files
> and restart?

Err, not that i know of, you must have only one replicating to the
other (i could be wrong, i just went for the best and simple solution.
In our case that means having the slave as read only so no updates are
possible if the master is unreachable.

Steph
-- 
"Step by step, penguins are taking my sanity apart ..."

References:
- RE: syncrepl questions
  - From: "Shawn Kennedy" <shawnlkennedy@lucent.com>

Prev by Date: Re: slapd working on localhost and *real* interface: What about certificates ?
Next by Date: Re: ldap_msgfree() when ldap_search_s() failed
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread