Dear Chris,
Thank you for taking the time to write.
My question however remains: we have eight busy LDAP slaves. "Should they all slave from both masters?"
Or should they slave from the VIP (virtual IP that goes to only one server on the basis of health checks)?
I completely understand that with mirror mode, writes go to only one of the masters, and I can arrange that using LVS (Linux virtual server) software, with the passive master the sorry server. That is not the issue.
The question is: how to arrange the eight slaves?
On 03/09/12 18:06 -0700, Chris Jacobs wrote:
Mirrormode - active/passive fail over. Only writes and other various meta properties will get to the active master.
The other node is a failover - ideally you shouldn't be making any writes to it that would normally go to the primary.
As for load, etc, the site I manage has a pretty small directory, so I can't offer any useful data.
- chris
Chris Jacobs Systems Administrator, Technology Services Group
Apollo Group | Apollo Marketing & Product Development | Aptimus, Inc. 1501 4th Ave | Suite 2500 | Seattle, WA 98101 direct 206.839.8245 | cell 206.601.3256 | Fax 206.644.0628 email: chris.jacobs@apollogrp.edu
----- Original Message ----- From: openldap-technical-bounces@OpenLDAP.org openldap-technical-bounces@OpenLDAP.org To: openldap-technical@openldap.org openldap-technical@openldap.org Sent: Mon Sep 03 17:40:30 2012 Subject: Slaving from Mirror Mode Masters
Dear Folks,
We are setting up mirror mode masters with eight fairly heavily loaded slaves (consumers).
Should they all slave from both masters?
An alternative is to slave from one, where a floating IP address is that of "the master".
Please can anyone share their experience?
Would all slaves being consumers to two masters result in any marked increased load on any of the servers?