[Freeipa-devel] Move replication topology to the shared tree

[Ludwig Krispenz]

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 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 think all topology info
>>>> should be concentrated in cn=etc.
>>> This is actually a good question, I think we want to keep it in the main
>>> database, but to be forward looking, we should set the basedn of the
>>> configuration (per topology) in the topology plugin configuration entry,
>>> this way if it turns out we should move it in their own dbs we can just
>>> do it.
>> yes, this can be handle in the topology plugin configuration, we need to
>> define which databases should be controlled and where the root for the
>> replicated topology information is.
>> I assume we want only one plugin instance.
>>> The other issue is the list of masters though. I do not want to move
>>> them in the topology tree (breaks compatibility) nor duplicate those
>>> entries if possible, but we may need to do it or also configure where
>>> the "nodes" are stored.
>> Agreed. What about non-masters, in the ticket there was also discussion
>> about read only replicas - to be delayed ?
> TBD, from the pov of the plugin we care only about Nodes and links, but
> yeah dealing with R/O replicas will mean the plugin should understand
> such servers need a segment that sends data to them but do not need a
> segment that carries data out.
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 ?
>
> Working on the topology consistency checker will be fun :-)
>
> Simo.
>