<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/06/2013 04:16 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:5279B4A8.3020802@redhat.com" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">5. If I have a network like this: A1______B1 A2 B2 A2 and B1,2 are replicated from A1 If the connection gets lost between A and B site, are B1 and 2 (and A1,2) replicated fine? </blockquote> I assume from the above that B1 does not know about B2 (and vice versa)? </blockquote> </blockquote> Well, that is actually one of the questions. B1 and B2 are on the same sites and failover nodes from point of view of clients. </blockquote> You can manage the replication topology with ipa-replica-manage connect and disconnect. So if you want B1 and B2 connected you can do that. <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">Once connectivity between sites A and B restored, all unreplicated data will be replicated. There could be conflicts if there were changes on both sides during the split but majority of them are solved automatically by 389-ds. </blockquote> </blockquote> The main question is that B1 and B2 are not replicated to each other automatically? What about the case if A1 -- replication -- A2 --- replication --- B1 -- replication -- B2 If B1 gets destroyed, how B2 and A2 (and A1) gets synchronized? Especially automatically...? Is there such a failover configuration? </blockquote> No, the masters only replicate to the ones you tell them to, so if B1 went away forever then B2 would never get any other updates unless you explicitly made a connection to A1 or A2. </blockquote> Can the replication agreement be circular? A2-A1-B1-B2-A2? Thanks, tamas </body> </html>