That is pretty much what I had in mind. I will bug you for configurations later. <br><br>Thanks,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jerald Sheets <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:questy@gmail.com">questy@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Open LDAP doesn't per-se, but with NIC bonding and Linux-HA, you can build a very strong highly-available situation for your environment. <br>
<br>We have two boxes that are replication slaves with bonded nics and then linux-HA serving a failover service address for the two. If one goes, the other picks up... We counted about 4 or 5 second lag for pickup. Couple that with nscd caching on your end hosts, and that small burp wouldn't be seen.<br>
<br>We have a master LDAP server living on a different subnet in a different data center that replicates to the above pair of hosts. It is where we do all our administration, and it gets synced to the replication slaves rather quickly.<br>
<br>All that is free/open, and I sort of prefer it over the evaluations we did of RH DS. <br><br><a href="http://www.openldap.org" target="_blank">http://www.openldap.org</a><br><a href="http://linux-ha.org" target="_blank">http://linux-ha.org</a><br>
<br>
If you need any configs/setup info, just ask. I'll share it here so everyone can benefit.<br><br><br>--jms<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Jim Kinney <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jim.kinney@gmail.com" target="_blank">jim.kinney@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">OpenLDAP has no automatic failover. All the others do. RedHat and<br>
CentOS are identical except in name. Fedora is a tad more advanced.<br>
They all support multi-master mode so any one can be live and any<br>
other can fail with auto resync when it comes back online.<br>
<br>
Recommend: CentOS 5.3 with it's LDAP.<br>
<div><div></div><div><br>
<br>
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Brandon Colbert<br>
<<a href="mailto:colbert.brandon@gmail.com" target="_blank">colbert.brandon@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> All,<br>
><br>
> I been tasked to setup a fail-over ldap solution at work. We have one<br>
> running openldap. I wanted to get everyone opinion on the difference between<br>
> OpenLDAP, CentOS-DS, Fedora-DS, and Redhat-DS.<br>
><br>
> If you had your choice, which one will you use?<br>
><br>
><br>
> FYI: In the near future we will tie samba and radius with ldap.<br>
</div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> Ale mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org" target="_blank">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
James P. Kinney III<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org" target="_blank">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div></div></div><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>---<br>Jerald M. Sheets jr.<br><br>
</font><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>