Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > 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 > are connected. None of this is for Persist phase, I have only been talking about refresh. >> 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? Still looking into it. slapadd -q uses 2 threads, one to parse the LDIF and one to write to the DB. syncrepl consumer only uses 1 thread. Probably if we split reading from the network apart from writing to the DB, that would make the difference.