On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Torsten Schlabach (Tascel eG) tschlabach@tascel.net wrote:
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.
Regards, Torsten
Quanah Gibson-Mount schrieb:
--On Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:12 PM +0100 "Torsten Schlabach (Tascel eG)" tschlabach@tascel.net wrote:
Hi all!
I am currently trying to chase some problems in an n-way multi-master setup with three servers. We have used the instructions at
http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/replication.html#N-Way%20Multi-Master
as our guidance and we are using OpenLDAP version 2.4.11.
I suggest you go read the CHANGES log for what has been fixed between 2.4.11 and the latest stable 2.4.19.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
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.
Testing reveals the presence of bugs, not the absence :) So no one can every say version x.y.z is certified bug free.
However, I do tend to agree, in that my MM just flaked out, and there is not much load/write/update going on so I am a bit worried.
I am not trying to put down OpenLDAP but iplanet/fedora directory server/389 support up to a 4 way MM implementation and I have found the replication rock solid even under high load. So if MM is your requirement that may be a more valid option.
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.
Dieter, I do not agree with that. You can't blame a user for using a feature. It is not marked as experimental anymore so people are going to use it. Once it fails you can't call them a "Poor Directory Designer" for using it.