[389-users] Single Master, Multiple Slave with NO Configuration Server Question

[Rich Megginson]

Vince Tingey wrote:
> Hi everyone,  I posted this last week but nobody replied.  I thought I 
> would send it out there one more time as I'd really like to know what 
> you experts think.  The documentation about what benefits using a 
> configuration server gives you is lacking.

It allows you to do centralized server management - manage all servers 
from a single console.

>
> Just wondering if there are any problems I should be aware of if I 
> want to setup a single master multiple slave scenario WITHOUT using 
> the master as a configuration server and just replicating our 
> directory database (not o=Netscape Root).  I'm ok having to connect to 
> the slave admin servers individually instead of them all showing up in 
> the console when I connect to the master admin server.  Are there any 
> other drawbacks? 
No, not really,  If you don't want the centralized console, then you 
don't have to use it.  Many Fedora DS users don't use the console/admin 
server at all and just manage everything directly with scripts and web 
based tools.
>
> What are the benefits of using a configuration server in this scenario?
>
> Thank you,
> -- 
>
> Vince                   |  Michael Smith Laboratories
> IT Systems Coordinator  |  University of British Columbia
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-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: 3258 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20090629/6ce601a2/attachment.bin>