Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication topology
to the shared tree
There has been some discussion in comments in the ticket, but I'd like
to open the discussion to a wider audience to get an agreement on what
should be implemented, before writing a design spec.
The im
First of all, very good summary, thanks a lot!
Replies in line.
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:46 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication topology
> to the shared tree
>
>
> There has been some discussion in comments in the ticket, but I'd like
>
On 06/02/2014 02:59 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
First of all, very good summary, thanks a lot!
Replies in line.
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:46 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication topology
to the shared tree
There has been some discussion in comm
Simo Sorce wrote:
> First of all, very good summary, thanks a lot!
> Replies in line.
>
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:46 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
>> Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication topology
>> to the shared tree
>>
>>
>> There has been some discussion in comments i
On 06/02/2014 04:08 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Simo Sorce wrote:
First of all, very good summary, thanks a lot!
Replies in line.
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:46 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication topology
to the shared tree
There has been
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:08 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> > However we may want to be able to mark a topology for 'multiple' sets.
> > For example we may want to have by default the same topology both for
> > the main database and for the CA database.
>
> I think we should sto
On 06/02/2014 10:46 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication topology
to the shared tree
There has been some discussion in comments in the ticket, but I'd like
to open the discussion to a wider audience to get an agreement on what
should be imp
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 16:53 +0200, thierry bordaz wrote:
> If server parameters are changed (port number, repl_admin or DM
> password) will it trigger the corresponding modification on the
> shared
> tree on the remote server ?
Well in the IPA case we do not have these issues as those parameters
On 06/02/2014 02:46 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication topology
to the shared tree
There has been some discussion in comments in the ticket, but I'd like
to open the discussion to a wider audience to get an agreement on what
should be imp
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:02 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
> Why not (selectively) replicate cn=config?
Because we do not want to just replicate cn=config (which would be
pointless anyway given each server has a completely different set of
replication agreements).
We want a much more abstract view
On 06/02/2014 08:38 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:08 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Simo Sorce wrote:
However we may want to be able to mark a topology for 'multiple' sets.
For example we may want to have by default the same topology both for
the main database and for the CA data
Hi Simo,
just for clarification. The plan is to move the repl config into the
shared tree for the main database and eventually for others like
o=ipaca. Should the topology info live in cn=etc for all databases or
each in the database it configures ?
If the main database is always replicated I
On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 14:15 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> Hi Simo,
>
> just for clarification. The plan is to move the repl config into the
> shared tree for the main database and eventually for others like
> o=ipaca. Should the topology info live in cn=etc for all databases or
> each in the
On 06/03/2014 02:53 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 14:15 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Hi Simo,
just for clarification. The plan is to move the repl config into the
shared tree for the main database and eventually for others like
o=ipaca. Should the topology info live in cn=etc fo
On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 15:47 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> On 06/03/2014 02:53 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 14:15 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> >> Hi Simo,
> >>
> >> just for clarification. The plan is to move the repl config into the
> >> shared tree for the main database and
On 06/02/2014 10:46 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication topology
to the shared tree
There has been some discussion in comments in the ticket, but I'd like
to open the discussion to a wider audience to get an agreement on what
should be imp
On 06/04/2014 10:43 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
So my proposal would contain the following components
1] Store replication configuration in the shared tree in a
combination of server and connection view (think we need both) and
map replication configuration to these entries. I would prefer a
On 06/03/2014 05:59 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 15:47 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 06/03/2014 02:53 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 14:15 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Hi Simo,
just for clarification. The plan is to move the repl config into the
shared tree fo
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 13:50 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> my question was more where the r/o replicas would be listed. In
> cn=ro-replicas parallel to cn=matsters,
> or should all servers be in cn=masters and have a replication role defined ?
We do not know yet as we do not have read-only repli
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 13:46 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 10:43 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So my proposal would contain the following components
> >>
> >> 1] Store replication configuration in the shared tree in a
> >> combination of server and connection view (think w
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 11:41 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 13:46 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> > On 06/04/2014 10:43 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> So my proposal would contain the following components
> > >>
> > >> 1] Store replication configuration in the shared
On 06/04/2014 05:41 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 13:46 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 06/04/2014 10:43 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
So my proposal would contain the following components
1] Store replication configuration in the shared tree in a
combination of server and connectio
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 18:04 +0200, thierry bordaz wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 05:41 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 13:46 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> >> On 06/04/2014 10:43 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
> So my proposal would contain the following components
>
> 1] Store r
On 06/04/2014 06:04 PM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 06/04/2014 05:41 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 13:46 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 06/04/2014 10:43 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
So my proposal would contain the following components
1] Store replication configuration in the shar
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 11:27 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 06:04 PM, thierry bordaz wrote:
> > But this requires that the node database is already initialized (have
> > the same replicageneration than the others nodes).
> > If it is not initialized, it could be done by any masters.
On 06/05/2014 02:45 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 11:27 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 06/04/2014 06:04 PM, thierry bordaz wrote:
But this requires that the node database is already initialized (have
the same replicageneration than the others nodes).
If it is not initialized, i
On 06/05/2014 03:14 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 06/05/2014 02:45 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 11:27 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 06/04/2014 06:04 PM, thierry bordaz wrote:
But this requires that the node database is already initialized (have
the same replicageneration th
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 16:46 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> On 06/05/2014 03:14 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> >
> > On 06/05/2014 02:45 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 11:27 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> >>> On 06/04/2014 06:04 PM, thierry bordaz wrote:
> But this requires th
On 06/05/2014 01:12 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 16:46 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 06/05/2014 03:14 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 06/05/2014 02:45 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 11:27 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 06/04/2014 06:04 PM, thierry bordaz wrote:
we need to be careful on the process, I have an idea how it could work,
but need to think a bit more about it
I am all ears.
Simo.
We already have several situations (CRL, DNSSEC, cert rotation) where
a single server has to do the job first and all the rest should rely
on that.
We can sim
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication topology to
> the shared tree
One comment to add:
It would be particularly useful if the interface used to set the
topology is something sane that a single host can use to set
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 06:58 -0400, James wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> > Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication topology to
> > the shared tree
>
>
> One comment to add:
>
> It would be particularly useful if the interface used to set t
On 06/06/2014 09:03 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 06:58 -0400, James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication topology to
the shared tree
One comment to add:
It would be particularly useful if t
On 06/06/2014 06:12 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 06/06/2014 09:03 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 06:58 -0400, James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Ludwig Krispenz
wrote:
Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication
topology to
the shared tree
One comment
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 09:03 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 06:58 -0400, James wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> > > Ticket 4302 is a request for an enhancement: Move replication topology to
> > > the shared tree
> >
> >
> > One comment to add:
35 matches
Mail list logo
