directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Question about Replication of Config Partition and Schema Partition
Date Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:45:52 GMT
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Le 7/17/12 12:28 AM, Alex Karasulu a écrit :
>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I was pretty much thinking that we could store those informations in a
>>> plain text file, but that would be a bit overkilling, when we can store
>>> them in a the DIT too. Maybe storing those information sinto the
>>> ou=config
>>> entry could be the right thing to do, assuming that the ou=config is not
>>> replicated (we will only replicate what's under ou=config, ie, its
>>> children)
>>>
>>>
>>>  Please please please let's not fuck with this. This is the worst idea
>> I've
>> heard of yet. We don't need another one off here.
>>
> That was just a suggestion, but I do agree this is more a hack than
> anything else.


Thank you for seeing this. This would create a nightmare for us in other
areas. This is why I sort of freaked.


> Plus after having checked the ou=config file, I don't even thinhk it's
> necessary.
>
>
Coolio.


> I totally buy the fact that implementing partial replication would solve
> the issue.
>
>
Yeah I think this will help us a great deal. I think we need fractional and
partial replication. We will still want to replicate some entries but not
all of their attributes, this is where fractional replication comes in
handy.


> The ou=config DIT starts with :
>
> version: 1
> dn: ou=config
> ou: config
> objectclass: top
> objectclass: organizationalUnit
>
> dn: ads-directoryServiceId=**default,ou=config
> objectclass: top
> objectclass: ads-directoryService
> ads-directoryserviceid: default
> ads-dsreplicaid: 1
> ...
>
> As we can see, each configuration is specific to a service, here
> "default". If we correctly name the instances so that there is no possible
> confusion between them, then we should be safe even if we replicate
> everything.
>
>
Da, Da, Da!


> The thing we have to solve is about the instance name : how dos the server
> get its instance name ?
>
>
I don't have an answer for this just yet but I am sure we can figure
something out. In addition to instance name we can also perhaps have an
instance UUID to disambiguate collisions.


> I must admit that, even if I worked on those thing in the past, it's not
> really fresh in my mind...
>
>
Think about where I am ;). Right now I'm completely driving off intuition.

Thanks for the very awesome logical response to my minor freak out.

-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

Mime
View raw message