Ankur Agarwal wrote: > Thanks Rich...Would it be possible for you to share some configuration > details to achieve this for OpenLDAP version 2.3? > To achieve what exactly for OpenLDAP 2.3? Chain from 389 to OpenLDAP? > > Cheers, > A > > --- On *Mon, 10/12/09, Rich Megginson /<rmeggins at redhat.com>/* wrote: > > > From: Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com> > Subject: Re: [389-users] Read data immediately after write > To: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server > project." <fedora-directory-users at redhat.com> > Date: Monday, October 12, 2009, 10:47 AM > > Ankur Agarwal wrote: > > Can i use chaining between master-slave without having different > "ou"? > > I mean if i have exactly same directory structure and same set > of OUs > > can i still have chaining between master and slave? > > > Yes. > > > > Cheers, > > Ankur > > > > > > --- On *Thu, 10/8/09, Michael Str?der /<michael at stroeder.com > <http://us.mc589.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=michael at stroeder.com>>/* > wrote: > > > > > > From: Michael Str?der <michael at stroeder.com > <http://us.mc589.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=michael at stroeder.com>> > > Subject: Re: [389-users] Read data immediately after write > > To: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server > > project." <fedora-directory-users at redhat.com > <http://us.mc589.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=fedora-directory-users at redhat.com>> > > Date: Thursday, October 8, 2009, 1:38 AM > > > > Ankur Agarwal wrote: > > > > > > I have a master-slave set-up with write operations always > being > > done to > > > the master node. Now there is an issue where i need to > read some > > data > > > immediately after write, and my read request goes to the > slave. > > It fails > > > in cases when replication hasnt happened from master to > slave before > > > this read operation. > > > > You simply should not do that. Read from the master if you > have to > > rely on the > > consistency of what you recently wrote to the master. > > > > > Is there a LDAP level configuration to handle this situation? > > > Can chaining help in this case? > > > > No. (Except chaining the read requests of the writing client to > > the master > > which you don't want I guess). > > > > Ciao, Michael. > > > > -- > > 389 users mailing list > > 389-users at redhat.com > <http://us.mc589.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=389-users at redhat.com> > > > <http://us.mc589.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=389-users at redhat.com> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -- > > 389 users mailing list > > 389-users at redhat.com > <http://us.mc589.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=389-users at redhat.com> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users > > > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users at redhat.com > <http://us.mc589.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=389-users at redhat.com> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3258 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20091013/06fd6f67/attachment.bin
