Dear Quanah,
Thanks again for taking the time to write a detailed and helpful reply.
On 25/06/10 10:41 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Friday, June 25, 2010 9:58 AM +1000 Nick Urbanik nick.urbanik@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 23/06/10 21:46 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Thursday, June 24, 2010 12:19 PM +1000 Nick Urbanik nick.urbanik@optusnet.com.au wrote: auditlog is not appropriate.
Please can you explain why this is so?
Auditlog is a poorly written overlay that hopefully will be deleted in the future. It kills perf, and in general is not recommended for use. If you want a record of changes, I suggest you look at the accesslog overlay.
1. Can we use an LDIF backend with the auditlog overlay?
2. Has anyone written a program to convert the auditlog data to an LDIF format that can be applied with ldapmodify?
One of the advantages of syncrepl (Although I use and prefer delta-syncrepl, since syncrepl has not proven reliable in my experience)
We are avoiding delta-syncrepl because, for reliability, we want to use mirror-mode, and at http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/replication.html#MirrorMode%20replicatio... under section 18.2.3.2. Arguments against MirrorMode is written:
"Delta-Syncrepl is not yet supported"
3. Does this mean that we are aiming for a less reliable replication with syncrepl that with delta-syncrepl?
4. Is there any prospect of delta-syncrepl being supported with mirror-mode?
We will use something like heartbeat or corosync/pacemaker to limit writes to one of the two mirror-mode masters.