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

Re: some questions about syncrepl

--On Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:30 PM +0200 Tony Earnshaw <tonni@hetnet.nl> wrote:

My high school site runs an OL 2.3.33 delta syncrepl provider and 3
2.3.37 refresh and persist consumers, it's utterly stable 24x7 (highest
uptime is 17 days because of new-kernel reboots but with the obsolete
RHEL4 there were uptimes of scores of days) and does everything it's
supposed to, including chaining from one of the slaves. Yes, there's a
reason I'm sticking to 2.3.33 on the provider for the time being.

While I'm glad it is working for you, I ran into problems using delta-syncrepl in all releases prior to 2.3.35, and even then, I had to substantially patch it with bits from 2.3.36, just the way in which they'd show up differed. Hence things like ITS#4904, ITS#4813, ITS#4720, ITS#4977 all of which were fixed after 2.3.33. So how robust your setup actually is vs your perception can be very different things. I.e., you knowingly put yourself and your community at risk by running the release you are using.



Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra, Inc
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration