Good morning Ulrich,
I believe there is a misunderstanding regarding the purpose for multiple
olcServerIDs in the slapd.d configuration. By listing server ids for all of
the masters in your MMR architecture, you can essentially make all of your
master servers' configurations identical. Slapd will apply the serverID that
matches the server's FQDN and ignore the rest.
Domain/IP address resolution should be handled by DNS; not the slapd
configuration. The serverID is only used by the other producer servers for
communication, so set each olcServerID to use the FQDN known by the other
producer/master servers in the MMR architecture.
3 Master MMR Architecture Example:
olcServerID: 1 ldap://server1.example.com
olcServerID: 2 ldap://server2.example.com
olcServerID: 3 ldap://server3.example.com
From: openldap-technical [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of Ulrich Windl
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 2:03 AM
To: openldap-technical(a)openldap.org; quanah(a)symas.com
Subject: Re: Antw: Re: Upgrading from 2.4.26 to 2.4.41: Stricter checks
>> Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)symas.com> schrieb am
>> 17:03 in
--On Monday, October 29, 2018 9:03 AM +0100 Ulrich Windl
> Yes, you are right, regarding the docs, but still I wonder, why all
> the different URIs for a multi-homed LDAP-server should not use the same
> If the ID designates the database where the data came from, that
> would make sense. Forcing different server IDs for every interface
> the server uses does not make that much sense to me.
That's not how things work and that is not what the documentation is
saying. You specify only a single serverID and URI *per server* not
per URI that the server uses.
I don't quite understand (replicated cn=config for MMR):
Assume a server has two IP addresses and names n1.d.o, n2.d.o associated
with it. So the
olcServerID: 1 ldap://n1.d.o:389
olcServerID: 1 ldap://n2.d.o:389
is illegal. How would the correct statement look like? How would it look
like if I also include ldaps: URIs?
>> " Non‑zero IDs are required when using multimaster replication and
>> each master must have a unique non‑zero ID."
>> Note the words "must have" and "unique".
> Yes, that's the specification, but does it really make sense?