On 10/05/2015 08:57 AM, ghiureai wrote:
Gmorning List and Rich,
I manged some progress Friday with cfg multimaster replication
fractional ( exclude memberOf plugin) the final goal is to have 3
ldap 's aka : 1,2 and 4 in mutlimaster fraction rep.
I had cfg dlap 2 to 4 as mutimaster , now I would like to bring in
ldap1 in cfg ( this is at present time our only production , all
writes+ read s are going here) ,
we can not have ldap1 offline I will like to proceed with cfg the
same steps I did for 2 to 4, but I will ask ldap 2 to be initialized
with most recent data from ldap1 , any issues here I may have to be
aware ?
No. You can initialize 2 from 1 while 1 is running.
Would ldap4 get updated also when performing the initialization of
ldap2 ?
No. After 2 is initialized, you can initialize 4 from either 1 or 2.
Thank you
Isabella
have On 10/02/2015 03:48 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
> On 10/02/2015 12:16 PM, ghiureai wrote:
>>
>> Hi List and Rich,
>>
>> as per last documentation update I am trying to cfg fractional
>> replication ( excluding memberOf plunging) for a multimaster cfg
>> server 3 ldap server, when starting with first one aftr mentioning
>> "memberOf " to be excluded in replication agreement , I get a message
>> like this ""Fractional replication can be done to a read-only suffix
>> in replica "...is this the case , so no multimaster will work with
>> fractional replication ? , or any other issue to get with message ?
>> I am following same procedure as for mutimaster replication except the
>> agreement has fractional replication , is this the correct approach ?
>
>> Thank you
>> Isabella
>>
>>
>> Isabella
>>
>> On 10/01/2015 11:49 AM, ghiureai wrote:
>>> Hi List ,Rich
>>> Here is the URL for the doc mentioned in this email, please can you
>>> confirm if this is the case for multimaster replication and memberOf
>>> plugin , is this the last update doc version ?
>>>
>>>
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/9....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>> Isabella
>>> On 10/01/2015 11:20 AM, Rich Megginson wrote:
>>>> On 10/01/2015 12:06 PM, ghiureai wrote:
>>>>> Hi Rich
>>>> Unless the issue involves some sort of security problem that
>>>> involves a
>>>> potential CVE, or contains sensitive data internal to your
>>>> organization
>>>> that you cannot make public, I would prefer that you use the
>>>> 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org for questions such as this. Not
>>>> only
>>>> will this benefit the entire community, but there are others who can
>>>> answer these sorts of questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Are you aware of any issues with MemberOf plugin and multimaster
>>>>> replication, some of old documentation one of the developer
>>>>> mentioned
>>>>> to me shows you can use full replication agreement ,
>>>> Please provide the URL of the documentation.
>>>
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/9....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> please see bellow and if you can advise if this is still the case :
>>>>>
>>>>> "......The memberOf attributes for user entries should not be
>>>>> replicated in multi-master environments. Make sure that the memberOf
>>>>> attribute is excluded from replication in the replication agreement.
>>>>> (Fractional replication is described in Section 11.1.7,
>>>>> “Replicating a
>>>>> Subset of Attributes with Fractional Replication”.)
>>>>> Each server must maintain its own MemberOf Plug-in independently. To
>>>>> make sure that the memberOf attributes for entries are the same
>>>>> across
>>>>> servers, simply configure the MemberOf Plug-in the same on all
>>>>> servers.
>>>>> With single-master replication, it is perfectly safe to replicate
>>>>> memberOf attributes. Configure the MemberOf Plug-in for the
>>>>> supplier,
>>>>> then replicate the memberOf attributes to the consumers. ....."
>>>> Yes, in general it is better to replicate the group operations only,
>>>> and
>>>> let each directory server update the internal memberof data. This
>>>> reduces the amount of replication traffic, and reduces the complexity
>>>> and processing in the memberof plugin to know if it needs to
>>>> include or
>>>> exclude an operation.
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you
>>>>> Isabella
>>>>>