IDS 5.x: Is a separate configuration directory server instance even needed?

Question

Because iDS 5.x supports multiple database instances, why is there a need to suggest installing the directory server with a separate configuration directory server instance (on say port 390)?
In large multi-tiered iDS 4.x directory server implementations, using a single master configuration directory server is very cumbersome, so many implementations are using a local configuration directory server instance, on port 390 with the data instance on the usual port 389.
With the iDS 5.x release, we will be implementing local directory server instances, all on port 389, on all of our tiered LDAP servers. There will be no separate configuration directory server instance, as it is not needed.
At this point, I am questioning the "best practices" suggested by the SunOne documentation to use a separate configuration directory server instance. It does not need to be on a separate port now with iDS 5.x supporting multiple databases.
And I note that the present "/usr/sbin/directoryserver setup" script will not allow for a directory instance to be installed on port 390.
Adam

Answer 1

Yes, with iDS 5.X, it's much safer to have the o=NetscapeRoot tree served by the same instance as your corp/user tree. The separation approach was created to avoid the pitfalls when importing LDIF, but the -n argument to ldif2db lets you avoid such problems.