[Fedora-directory-users] Failover between masters

[Richard Megginson]

Coe, Colin C. (Unix Engineer) wrote:
> See inline comments
>
>   
>> Coe, Colin C. (Unix Engineer) wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> We are currently using Sun's Directory server and have had some
>>> problems with clients failing over to the other master if 
>>>       
>> one fails.  
>>     
>>> The clients are a minxute of RHEL 3 WS and Solaris 8 
>>>       
>> (SPARC), and the 
>>     
>>> Sun Directory servers are both Solars 9 (SPARC) running 
>>>       
>> Directory One 5.1.
>>     
>>> /etc/ldap.conf
>>> host 1.1.1.1 2.2.2.2
>>> port 636
>>> ldap_version 3
>>> base o=unix,dc=company,dc=com
>>> scope sub
>>> timelimit 5
>>> bind_timelimit 3
>>> ssl on
>>> pam_filter objectclass=posixAccount
>>> pam_login_attribute uid
>>> pam_member_attribute memberUid
>>> pam_password crypt
>>> idle_timelimit 3600
>>>
>>> /etc/openldap/ldap.conf
>>> BASE o=unix,dc=company,dc=com
>>> HOST ldap1.company.com ldap2.company.com
>>> PORT 636
>>> SASL_SECPROPS "noanonymous,noplain"
>>> SIZELIMIT 0
>>> TIMELIMIT 0
>>> DEREF never
>>> TLS_CACERT      /etc/ssl/ldap/cacert.pem
>>> TLS_REQCERT     demand
>>>
>>> We're using the bog standard nscd daemons provided by the 
>>>       
>> OS vendors.
>>     
>>> We also use IDSync to synchronise user passwords from AD to 
>>>       
>> LDAP but 
>>     
>>> not from LDAP to AD.
>>>
>>> What we're finding is if ldap1 dies for some reason, the 
>>>       
>> clients don't
>>     
>>> failover to ldap2. 
>>>
>>> We don't know if the problem is client side or server side.  Would
>>> Fedora Directory Server, set up in a similar manner, also 
>>>       
>> not failover 
>>     
>>> properly?
>>>
>>>       
>> It wouldn't make any difference.  I'm pretty sure failover is 
>> a properly 
>> of the client.  Are you sure you have the multiple hosts configured 
>> correctly in your ldap.conf files?
>>     
>
> No, I'm not 100% sure that the clients are set right.  My sanitised
> /etc/ldap and /etc/openldap/ldap.conf are shown above.  Can you suggest
> any improvements to them?
>   
I don't know.  I'm not familiar with failover configuration.
>   
>>> While we're prepared to look at Fed DS, there is a feeling 
>>>       
>> that it too
>>     
>>> will behave in the same manner, given they are both forks 
>>>       
>> of the same 
>>     
>>> project.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> CC
>>>
>>>       
>
> NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential. 
> They may contain legally privileged information or 
> copyright material. You must not read, copy, use or 
> disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an 
> intended recipient, please contact us at once by return 
> email and then delete both messages and all attachments.
>
> --
> Fedora-directory-users mailing list
> Fedora-directory-users at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3245 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-directory-users/attachments/20070328/1ff1a577/attachment.bin>