On 12/16/2012 09:22 AM, Colin Tulloch wrote:
Hi all – thanks for reading!
We're planning a deployment of RHDS in our environment right now. We
want to setup multi-mastering, however I'm confused by the "20 masters
per replication scenario" limit that's in the Redhat documentation.
There doesn’t seem to be any explanation around this limit that I can
That's just the number of masters that Red Hat will support when you
purchase RHDS from Red Hat.
Technically, the limit on the number of masters is 65534.
You will usually run into machine resource limits well before you set up
65534 replication agreements though.
-Each database (with one or more suffix assigned to it) seems to be
what is considered as a "server" when it comes to replication
scenarios - is that the case?
-Does this mean you are limited to 20 databases marked as Masters, in
an instance of directory server?
-Or is it the limit 20 masters of a single database, spread across
different instances of DS/machines?
-How is this limit enforced, if it is? This part confuses me, the
“limit” seems thrown into the documentation with no context.
It's really only for Red Hat RHDS supportability, not for technical reasons.
We can design the architecture to avoid ever worrying about the 20
database limit, but we’re concerned about storing a ton of directory
information that is currently located in separate (different vendor)
directory servers, all in a single RH/389 DS “database”. We might have
some naming conflicts as well as policy constraints there as well – so
we’re just trying to get a handle on the implications of scaling the
And how might all this apply different to 389, if at all ?
Can you be more specific?
389 users mailing list