directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <aok...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: [replication] Master slave replication will not suffice
Date Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:21:23 GMT
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

>
>
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>>
>> I was thinking about replication earlier today.  I was hoping we can 
>> quickly implement master slave replication by piggy backing on a JMS 
>> implementation like ActiveMQ.  It quickly occured to me however that 
>> there is no way we can utilize a master slave rep. configuration 
>> without loosing all the benefits of having embedded services like 
>> Kerberos, DNS, DHCP etc.
>>
>> The reasoning behind this has to do with the way master-slave rep. 
>> works.  Basically there is one master and all other servers are 
>> slaves a.k.a. replicas.  A request to modify a replica returns an 
>> error indicating the replica is not writable along with a referral to 
>> the master.  I forget the exact LDAP result code returned.  The 
>> client would then contact the master for the alteration what ever it 
>> may be.  The master makes the change and propagates it to the 
>> replicas usually using a special replication user that bypasses 
>> certain checks.
>>
>> Here's the problem: with a master slave setup an embedded inet 
>> service like Kerberos will have to contact the master of the system 
>> to make alterations on all replicas for any alterations to the DIT!  
>> This defeats the entire purpose of embedding the service in the first 
>> place and limits the HA yeild from replication.
>>
>> So what we need is multimaster replication.  This is an order of 
>> magnitude more complex than master slave replication. 
>
>
> Once you have replication what's the point in embedding?

No network latency between say,

DNS and LDAP or
Kerberos and LDAP or
DHCP and LDAP ...

Also the there is less entropy to the system.  It also means that there 
are not as many exposed points for attack from a security standpoint.  
Intra process communication is more secure and faster than two separate 
inter process servers talking to each other.

Does this make sense or am I missing something here?  I'm begining to 
doubt myself because you're like the 3rd person to think there was a 
flaw with this reasoning.

    -Alex



Mime
View raw message