On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Le 7/17/12 12:28 AM, Alex Karasulu a écrit :
That was just a suggestion, but I do agree this is more a hack than anything else.
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.
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.
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 :
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.