[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: syncrepl questions
On Sep 23, 2003, at 10:22 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Okay, then I understand what is happening with my replica/servers --
It is sending all the blank pieces, which eats up a huge amount of
resources and causes my systems to start swapping horribly. I'll
start poking into what in syncrepl is causing the resource issues.
The fact that it always has to send everything in the current
methodology, makes, IMHO, syncrepl useless for anyone with a medium or
lager database, since the servers are going to be spending all their
time sending the changes + empty entries. For our systems, the dump
is happening less quickly than changes are occuring, with means
changes would be stacking up, at least if it is left in persistent
mode. Probably the same thing if it is put in periodic updates,
unless I have it only do those once every couple of ours, which
doesn't work for us, because we need updates to be as close to real
time as possible.
Is the point of sending the currently present entries to do a
comparison of that list against what is stored locally and remove
anything that isn't the current state of the provider? If so, that
seems like a very expensive way to handle things. Why not just keep
deleted records around with the modification stamp indicating when they
were deleted, and send the death notifications across which are newer
than the last sync.