Re: MirrorMode and chaining - are slaves needed?

Gavin Henry <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.network.openldap.general
Message-ID <9877611.331256052254691.JavaMail.root@mail>
----- "Ryan Steele" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Gavin Henry wrote:
> > ----- "Ryan Steele" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I'm in the process of setting up about six nodes, and tossing
> around
> >> the idea of having either 2 masters in MirrorMode
> >> (traffic to the "active" master is managed externally) with 4
> slaves
> >> (each of whom will refer their writes to the active
> >> master).  I'm automating some of the setup, and in an effort to
> >> simplify the configuration, was wondering if I might be
> >> better served by simply having 6 masters with an identical
> >> configuration, each of which refer their writes to the active
> >> master (a separate IP/hostname on a virtual interface on one of
> the
> >> masters).
> >>
> >> So, the question becomes, 'are there any downsides I'm not aware
> of?' 
> >> It seems to me that the advantage with the 6
> >> masters is that, aside from the consolidation of configs for the
> >> automated setup, I now have 6 write-capable nodes
> >> instead of 2.  And, provided I chain the writes to the active
> master,
> >> I shouldn't have to worry about incompatible
> >> writes/partitioning.  Any thoughts, advice, recommendations? 
> Thanks!
> > 
> > If you have 6 masters you don't need to chain anything as that is
> Multi Master.
> > 
> > I'm confused as to why you are chaining from a master to an active
> master. You should have
> > either two MirrorMode nodes (with management) and chaining slaves or
> full Multi Master.
> 
> I want to use MirrorMode, but between six nodes instead of two (the
> example in the Admin Guide uses three, so I figured
> using more than just two nodes was fine).  As such, I need an active
> master to ensure that two masters don't write to
> the same entry or entries at (or near) the same time and cause a
> conflict/partition.

Sorry Ryan, but I think you misunderstand MirrorMode. MirrorMode is Active-Active
Hot-standby. It's designed for just *two* nodes. The example in the admin guide is
for full Multi-Master, but only showing three masters.

Anything more that two is Multi-Master.

> I figured that having six masters in MirrorMode, instead of two
> masters and four slaves, would allow me to cut down on
> configuration while boosting my redundancy.  I would use chaining on
> all of them to both keep the configs identical
> (less management overhead) and ensure that I don't run in to the
> aforementioned conflict scenarios.  Is there anything
> I've failed to consider in deciding that using six masters in
> MirrorMode is more desirable than having two masters in
> MirrorMode with four slaves?

See above. If you have 6 Multi-Master and replicate cn=config and the rest of the
data, you will have your desired outcome.

> > The way you've described above isn't very clear and sounds messy.
> What your clients/apps need 
> > from the slaves? What is the usage pattern etc.
> 
> I thought it sounded more simple - six masters with identical
> configurations (both cn=config and backend database
> replicated via identical syncprov/syncrepl configurations on each
> node), with all writes being directed to the active
> master; the chaining just guarantees that any writes erroneously sent
> to an inactive master would be forwarded on to the
> active master.

They handle this all themselves via SyncRepl when in Multimaster mode. As all writes
have to go to all masters.

> In contrast, with the two masters and four slaves, the two masters
> must share syncprov/syncrepl configs and replicate
> cn=config and backend data to and from each other, while replicating
> the backend to the slaves; the six slaves would in
> turn need entirely separate syncprov/syncrepl configs since their
> cn=config wouldn't be in MirrorMode, to ensure that
> they replicate backend data to nobody and from the active master, and
> because they'd still need to chain/refer writes to
> the masters.

Correct.

> Does the above logic seem sound or flawed to you?  Anything I've
> glossed over or perhaps misunderstood?  Thanks again
> for all the advice and insight - I truly appreciate it!

Just the terms MirrorMode and Multi-Master. Check out:

http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/replication.html#MirrorMode%20replication
http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/replication.html#N-Way%20Multi-Master%20replication

Thanks.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.

T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E [email protected]

Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).

http://www.suretecsystems.com/

Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in Scotland. Registered
number: SC258005. Registered office: 24 Cormack Park, Rothienorman, Inverurie,
Aberdeenshire, AB51 8GL.

Subject to disclaimer at http://www.suretecgroup.com/disclaimer.html
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.