[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: slapd, bdb, 32-bit -> 64-bit

--On Monday, October 16, 2006 6:13 AM -0700 Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com> wrote:

Frode Nordahl wrote:
On 16. okt. 2006, at 12.08, Buchan Milne wrote:

On Monday 16 October 2006 09:56, Frode Nordahl wrote:
On 16. okt. 2006, at 03.08, matthew sporleder wrote:

I also have a large database (my slapcat-ed file is over 4gb), but I
don't see how it's more reliable to shutdown a spare for one hour
while you scp versus four hours while you slapadd.  What's the
difference?  A minute's worth of replication to catch-up with?

I would have to take the slave down to do the slapcat as well,

No, you can slapcat while the slave is running.

Wouldn't that leave the LDIF in a inconsistent state? Or is slapcat protected by a transaction?

All write operations in back-bdb/hdb are transactional, so they are fully isolated. slapcat will only see consistent data. That was one of the reasons for writing back-bdb in the first place...

I'd think if one is using slurpd, there's the possibility that the replica could receive changes to the database to entries that had already been dumped while the other entries are being dumped, meaning the new replica, when loaded, wouldn't have those changes, and no way to get them. Another excellent reason for not using slurpd. ;)


Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITS/Shared Application Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html