Fedora directory users - Jun 2005 - Fedora Directory Replica of Sun One Directory

I''m sure this was tried successfully by the development team, but for 
all the admins out there: setting up a Fedora Directory on RHEL 3/Intel 
as a consumer of an existing Sun One on Solaris/Sparc supplier is 
seamless. Took all of 25 minutes after downloading the rpm to get my 
30,000+ entry development environment replicated to a test box. I 
figured this would not require alot of effort, just didn''t anticipate
it
would be almost *no* effort. For anyone considering migrating their LDAP 
environment to x86 Linux the release of the Red Hat/Fedora Directory 
product is going to be a watershed event.

Thanks again to the development team for a job well done. Keep up the 
good work!

-- 
Philip Lembo
IT Infrastucture Applications Engineering
Arrow Electronics, Inc.

Philip Lembo wrote:
> I''m sure this was tried successfully by the development team, but
for
> all the admins out there: setting up a Fedora Directory on RHEL 
> 3/Intel as a consumer of an existing Sun One on Solaris/Sparc supplier 
> is seamless. Took all of 25 minutes after downloading the rpm to get 
> my 30,000+ entry development environment replicated to a test box. I 
> figured this would not require alot of effort, just didn''t
anticipate
> it would be almost *no* effort. For anyone considering migrating their 
> LDAP environment to x86 Linux the release of the Red Hat/Fedora 
> Directory product is going to be a watershed event.
DS7.1 retains backward compatibility with previous versions for
the replication protocol (although DS7.1 when replicating with
''itself'' will use a slightly different protocol that is
significantly more
efficient over high-latency network paths).

Replication protocol compatibility with Sun isn''t a supported or tested
feature, but it should work provided Sun haven''t changed their
product to make it incompatible since the two codelines diverged.

On 6/3/05, David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
wrote:
> Replication protocol compatibility with Sun isn''t a supported or
tested
> feature, but it should work provided Sun haven''t changed their
> product to make it incompatible since the two codelines diverged.
Anyone know exactly what the differences are between Fedora DS and
Sun''s current offering?  We just rolled out Sun''s DS, but if I
can get
the exact same functionality out of FedoraDS, I may switch to that
instead and save the $$$ licensing fee.

Bill

Bill Bradford wrote:
>On 6/3/05, David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>Replication protocol compatibility with Sun isn''t a supported
or tested
>>feature, but it should work provided Sun haven''t changed their
>>product to make it incompatible since the two codelines diverged.
>>    
>>
>
>Anyone know exactly what the differences are between Fedora DS and
>Sun''s current offering?  We just rolled out Sun''s DS, but
if I can get
>the exact same functionality out of FedoraDS, I may switch to that
>instead and save the $$$ licensing fee.
>
>  
>
Actually, after posting I remembered that there is some
''official'' support
for what''s called migration from some version(s) of Sun DS. Migration
does include support for progressive upgrade of replicated servers,
which in turn implies support for inter-product replication. Someone else
will need to say what the exact level of support is and which versions
because I don''t have that information to hand.

Now, to answer your question the two products have essentially the
same replication functionality. AFAIK DS7.1 has a superset of all
Sun''s current product replication functionality.

David Boreham wrote:
> Bill Bradford wrote:
>
>>On 6/3/05, David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>>Replication protocol compatibility with Sun isn''t a
supported or tested
>>>feature, but it should work provided Sun haven''t changed
their
>>>product to make it incompatible since the two codelines diverged.
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Anyone know exactly what the differences are between Fedora DS and
>>Sun''s current offering?  We just rolled out Sun''s DS,
but if I can get
>>the exact same functionality out of FedoraDS, I may switch to that
>>instead and save the $$$ licensing fee.
>>
>>  
>>
> Actually, after posting I remembered that there is some
''official'' support
> for what''s called migration from some version(s) of Sun DS.
Migration
> does include support for progressive upgrade of replicated servers,
> which in turn implies support for inter-product replication. Someone else
> will need to say what the exact level of support is and which versions
> because I don''t have that information to hand.
There are some migration Perl scripts included with Fedora DS that may 
be of use.  But they have not been updated for Sun DS 5.2.
> Now, to answer your question the two products have essentially the
> same replication functionality. AFAIK DS7.1 has a superset of all
> Sun''s current product replication functionality.
Sun made some changes to their replication protocol for 5.2 to make it 
work better over a WAN.  I''m not exactly sure what they did, but it 
might not be implemented the same way we did ours for 7.1.  However, if 
you don''t do WAN replication, then it probably doesn''t make
any difference.

Did you want to know the differences between Sun DS and Fedora DS in 
replication functionality or in all areas?  There are a few differences 
- Sun DS includes native support for DSMLv2, while we provide support in 
the form of a gateway.  Sun DS 5.2 service pack 3 supports ModDN with 
new superior, Fedora DS only supports ModRDN (i.e. rename in place).  
Other than those two relatively minor differences, the two products are 
almost identical in functionality.
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>--
>Fedora-directory-users mailing list
>Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>  
>