Re: syncrepl questions

[Jason Townsend <jtownsend@apple.com>]

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.

-Jason