Re: Replication errors with slurpd and ppolicy

[Michael Steinmann <msl@calivia.com>]

Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> Gavin Henry wrote:
>
>>> yes, but according to [1] and other sources the current
>>> implementation of
>>> refreshAndPersist is not a pure push solution. It's still the slave
>>> that
>>> initiates the connection. To me it looked as I'd have to wait for 2.4.
>>>
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong as I might misinterpret the docs, however. Have
>>> you tested this and confirmed it works?
>>
>> No, you are right. I misunderstood your requirement for a push based
>> solution.
>
> I need to check, but what 2.4 does is provide a facility for push-like
> sync-replication; however, the latest 2.3 should allow to proxy
> syncrepl by means of a regular proxy.  Namely, what test045 does
> should be possible with 2.3 as well, at the cost of an extra instance
> of slapd for proxying, while what test048 does requires something
> specific to 2.4.
>
> Again: this needs to be checked, since 2.3 might still miss some details.
>
>
> p.

thanks for the insights.

What we're currently replicating to the slaves is not vital for the
operation of the customer-facing services so I think we'd prefer not to
add to the complexity more than what's required. Even though we're using
virtualized hosts and adding one or two wouldn't be such a big deal.

We've settled with using slurpd until the next upgrade round. But thanks
anyways for the pointers, I'll check those tests out regardless.

--
mike