Hi all – thanks for reading!

 

We're planning a deployment of RHDS in our environment right now. We want to setup multi-mastering, however I'm confused by the "20 masters per replication scenario" limit that's in the Redhat documentation. There doesn’t seem to be any explanation around this limit that I can find.

 

-          Each database (with one or more suffix assigned to it) seems to be what is considered as a "server" when it comes to replication scenarios - is that the case?

-          Does this mean you are limited to 20 databases marked as Masters, in an instance of directory server?

-          Or is it the limit 20 masters of a single database, spread across different instances of DS/machines?

-          How is this limit enforced, if it is? This part confuses me, the “limit” seems thrown into the documentation with no context.

 

We can design the architecture to avoid ever worrying about the 20 database limit, but we’re concerned about storing a ton of directory information that is currently located in separate (different vendor) directory servers, all in a single RH/389 DS “database”. We might have some naming conflicts as well as policy constraints there as well – so we’re just trying to get a handle on the implications of scaling the architecture up.

 

 

And how might all this apply different to 389, if at all ?

 

 

 

 

Colin Tulloch

Colin.tulloch@entrust.com

 

--
389 users mailing list
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users