Personally I don't understand the reason to even introduce a vip into
the equation. most if not all LDAP clients understand having multiple
servers in their configuration and since you can use wildcard certs or
certs with multiple host names.
also a lot of issues ive seen over the years with LDAP implementations
were caused by using VIPS and or load balancers.
2012/4/26 Jim Finn <jamespfinn(a)gmail.com>:
Instead of having the same actual IP for each server, why not use
IPs with something like heartbeat? This way if replica-A@siteA goes down,
replica-A@siteB will take over. This entirely depends on your network
topology, but may be a step in the right direction.
Having servers with the same IPs doens't seem to be the most elegant
solution; same with rsync'ing your database instead of using replication.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Paul Robert Marino <prmarino1(a)gmail.com>
> Well that's not a great way to set that up but its workable. You will need
> to sync without ssl and do a destination nat betwean them
> On Apr 26, 2012 4:05 AM, "Maurizio Marini" <maumar(a)cost.it> wrote:
>> I have a disaster recovery scenario:
>> on a remote location I have the same servers with the same hostnames and
>> same ip's, exactly all the same.
>> Nightly I use rsync to keep all the servers in sync.
>> One of this server is a CentOS5 with centos-ds and samba as pdc.
>> I cannot use replica between current and dr, as the 2 server have the
>> same ip
>> and hostname.
>> I am using ldap2db to import the nightly ldif backup.
>> /usr/lib/dirsrv/slapd-centos-ds/ldif2db -n userRoot -i
>> It seems work, it's dirty but does work.
>> Do u see any side-effects? Have u some suggestion?
>> 389 users mailing list
> 389 users mailing list
389 users mailing list