Re: Antw: Re: Upgrading from 2.4.26 to 2.4.41: Stricter checks prevent startup?
>> Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)symas.com> schrieb am
29.10.2018 um 17:03 in
Nachricht <F73964C4E931CAA3C41163BE(a)[192.168.1.39]>:
--On Monday, October 29, 2018 9:03 AM +0100 Ulrich Windl
<Ulrich.Windl(a)rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> 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 ID:
> 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
...other servers...
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?
Yes.
Regards,
Ulrich