Le 03/02/15 09:41, Howard Chu a écrit :
Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Le 03/02/15 05:11, Howard Chu a écrit :
>> Another option here is simply to perform batching. Now that we have
>> the TXN api exposed in the backend interface, we could just batch up
>> e.g. 500 entries per txn. much like slapadd -q already does.
>> Ultimately we ought to be able to get syncrepl refresh to occur at
>> nearly the same speed as slapadd -q.
> Batching is ok, except that you never know how many entries you'll going
> to have, thus you will have to actually write the data after a period of
> time, even if you don't have the 500 entries.
This isn't a problem - we know exactly when refresh completes, so we
can finish the batch regardless of how many entries are left over.
True for Refresh. I was thinking more specifically of updates when we
The idea of pushing the expected number of updates within the cookie is
for information purposes : having this number traced in the
logs/monitored could help in some cases where the refresh phase takes
long : the users will not stop the server thinking it has stalled.
Testing this out with the experimental ITS#8040 patch - with lazy
commit the 2.8M entries (2.5GB data) takes ~10 minutes for the refresh
to pull them across. With batching 500 entries/txn+lazy commit it
takes ~7 minutes, a decent improvement. It's still 2x slower than
slapadd -q though, which loads the data in 3-1/2 minutes.
Not bad at all. What makes it 2x slower, btw?