On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 19:03 +0000, Brian Lehnhardt wrote: > Does anyone use keepalived with a mult-master setup? I'm currently > using an haproxy, but I think just using a vip between the two > masters should be sufficient for my use case. I'm curious how > keepalived would work with a 389 server. > Hey there, I would really advise sharing a VIP between the two masters like this. A loadbalancer is a better idea, or most clients have the ability to specify multiple servers. I've written up some stuff in the past about zero-downtime migrations of ldap that might help give some ideas. https://fy.blackhats.net.au/blog/html/2016/06/03/zero_outage_migration_ of_directory_server_infrastructure.html?highlight=zero Hope that helps, > _______________________________________________ > 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.o > rg > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelin > es > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-user > s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/7XESO334O4ETQKGL3WSJF4QQERAGLIO6/ -- Sincerely, William _______________________________________________ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/KL52IHBZ44B2376LRYIFPXUB3MJTJPCQ/
