Hi Dieter! > The answer is quite simple: do not use multimaster replication in a > production environment. In most cases the requirement for multimaster > replication is just based on poor directory design.
If this is a "do not use feature", for what reason has it been included in the software, in the first place. > Slapd in a synchronized environment is, with a few exceptions which > have only been fixed recently, rock stable, I know of environments > with up to 150 consumers. When you say "synchronized", do you mean one master and n slaves? When you say, the requirement for N-way multi-master is usually poor directory design, I wonder if I am suffering from a misconception here, i.e. mixing up N-way multi-master and mirror mode possibly. What we want to achieve is a HA solution where *all* directory data is stored on more than one physical machine. I know I can do that by having a master and a slave. But then I would need to have a mechanism entirely external to slapd that if the master fails I turn the slave into a master and vice versa. (However this could be reliably achieved.) So the idea for N-way multi-master was just: I can point the DNS entry to whatever server in my cluster (possibly there may be more than two) and it will be a writeable directory and I won't ever loose any information I write into that LDAP cloud. Regards, Torsten Dieter Kluenter schrieb: > "Torsten Schlabach (Tascel eG)" <[email protected]> writes: > >> Hi Quanah! >> >>> I suggest you go read the CHANGES log for what has been fixed between >>> 2.4.11 and the latest stable 2.4.19. >> I need to say, it worries me a bit that for problems with a core feature >> which has been around for quite some time, the answer is more often that >> I like to hear: You need to use the latest version released last week / >> month or so. >> >> I have indeed read the CHANGES and seen that some issues have been >> fixed. I have no idea if we are affected by those issues or now. >> >> Also how would I know that *now* in 2.4.19 all problems are fixed and >> the answer next week won't be: You need to use 2.4.20. >> >> But as this is a FOSS project and not a product we pay for, we >> understand that we should not blame people but try and help if we find a >> a problem. >> >> For that reason I have asked in my email for help on *understanding* and >> *diagnosing* problems to have a chance to contribute in case we will >> find any new issues. >> >> Also our customers may not like it if in case of a problem we tell them: >> Let's wait if in some weeks a new release will come which will fix it or >> not. So I'd rather be in a position to get my hands dirty myself in case >> of problems. > > The answer is quite simple: do not use multimaster replication in a > production environment. In most cases the requirement for multimaster > replication is just based on poor directory design. > Slapd as a stand alone directory is rock stable and outperforms all > other products I know of. > Slapd in a synchronized environment is, with a few exceptions which > have only been fixed recently, rock stable, I know of environments > with up to 150 consumers. > > -Dieter >
