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

Re: size of bdb database, master vs replica

Le 22/05/2012 18:47, Quanah Gibson-Mount a Ãcrit :
--On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:06 AM +0200 Jehan Procaccia <jehan.procaccia@tem-tsp.eu> wrote:

Le 21/05/2012 18:33, Quanah Gibson-Mount a Ãcrit :

--On Monday, May 21, 2012 3:15 PM +0200 jehan procaccia
<jehan.procaccia@it-sudparis.eu> wrote:

ok  __dd.xxx files are memory mapped files,
then which is the file(s) that contains the database ? I suspect
id2entry.bdb, but why on the master the size in  KB is:
 195412    id2entry.bdb
 and on the slave
 32    id2entry.bdb

It doesn't look to me like your replica is replicating at all.  Have you
done a slapcat of the two and verified they are identical?


Ok, then I did a slapcat on a replica and to my big surprise,  before I
did the slapcat, bdb files on the replica were very small, then as soon
as I did the slapcat (while slapd is off), now they are similar in size
to the master !?
 Do we need to run regularly slapcat on replicas in order to "really"
replicate ?

No. It sounds like you don't have a checkpoint directive set for your database. You should fix that.

You are right, now that I added
checkpoint      200 240
in the slapd.conf, bdb files are bigger !

in fact my old repicas in 2.3 had that directive in global configuration
whereas apparently in 2.4 that directive must be in a database definition, that's probably why I missed that one during the migration process .

thanks .