Re: chasing referrals

[Terry D. <td...@bi...>]

Perhaps I am using the wrong terminology (very possible).

The whole point of having a slave is so you can replicate your data to 
multiple places for redundancy and load balancing.
If a modify hits my slave, the slave should refer that request onto my 
master ldap server.  If the client that is hitting the slave server 
cannot handle referrals properly, then you cannot perform updates with 
that slave server.  You will be forced to set your client to use the 
master all of the time for updates.  It makes it difficult to 
differentiate between updates and reads to define which host you must 
hit to perform that  operation.  This breaks the whole load balancing 
idea.  

Am I off base here?  It is late and I am hungry so I wont be surprised.  :)
I cheated and am using ldapmodify which supports chasing referrals 
natively.  But I would like to use net::ldap because it is cooler.


Lars Thegler wrote:

>From: "Terry Davis" <td...@bi...>
>
>>That seems broken.  That whole missing idea competely breaks
>>replication.  I was reading up a little bit and I see that you can
>>
>
>I don't really see your point about replication. In my mind, replication and
>referrals has very little to do with each other. Please enlighten me :-)
>
>>possibly get a list of referrals from Net::ldap::message.
>>Is this correct?
>>
>
>Yes. Use the ->referrals() method. "Returns a list of referrals from the
>result message" as it says in the man page. You'll have to do a re-bind
>based on the result, of course.
>
>/Lars
>