Re: Some openldap 2.4 questions

[Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>]

Radosław Antoniuk wrote:
> *Clearly* the provider SHOULD provide information, if it has pushed all the
> updates to the slaves.
> Ok, your excuse is that this is due to the fact, that the provider does not
> keep track of slaves. Ergo?
> The slaves are wrongly implemented. And *they* should provide the information
> if they have the connection and are up2date or not.
> This is of course totally implementation-dependent (in this case, I'd even
> risk the statement that it is quite wrongly implemented), when we have *no
> idea* if the slave copy is up2date or not.

Obviously the consumer knows what its replication status is, but you can only
determine whether a consumer is up to date or not when you have simultaneous
access to both the consumer and the provider, to compare their status. If you
sever the network connection, nothing can be inferred on either side about the
other.

Since you haven't bothered to read the design of syncrepl or the motivation
behind it, you're in no position to judge the correctness of it.

> Answers like those, make me think that open-source is a waste of time
> comparing to paid solutions (even though I am a strong evangelist of Debian
> and other open source solutions, which I think the writer does not care about).

The defining characteristic of open source is that the code is openly shared
amongst developers and users. There is nothing implied about costs of
operating it. If you believe there's a distinction between "paid solutions"
and "open source" you're quite mistaken, the two are completely orthogonal. If
you have a commercial enterprise, and you have even half a brain, you pay for
support for your solutions, whether they are open or closed source.

-- 
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/