Jorge Santos wrote: > I'm trying to allow management of the sub-suffix by a different group, > to increase the perfomance and because of scalability The former can be done with ACIs, and AFIAK, you'll only get the latter if you set up database replication rather than database links. If you want to follow the replication route, two different configurations spring immediately to mind. In the first, you set up "dc=mg" (which is an unusual configuration; "dc" is the short name aka "domaincomponent", which normally is used to describe a DNS name: redhat.com == dc=redhat,dc=com) on the master server, and create "ou=bh" underneath it. Create an administrative account in ou=People,dc=mg, and give that account write access to "ou=bh,dc=mg". Then, set up the same root on your second server, and establish replication of the dc=mg suffix to that server. You can make the secondary server a read-only consumer, or if you like, you can set them both up as multi-master read-write servers, in which case they each need a replication agreement to the other. The other configuration that's possible is to set up each suffix on its respective server, and then create a read-only replica of the other server's suffix on the opposite. In this configuration, serverA would have a read-write dc=mg, and a read-only ou=bh,dc=mg; serverB would have a read-write ou=bh,dc=mg, and a read-only dc=mg. Searches would work against either server, and writes would be redirected by referrals. Clients that don't follow referrals would need to write to the correct server explicitly. So.. which way would you rather go?
