On 3/4/09 3:01 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:24 PM +0100 Michael StrÃ¶der
>> You may consider the 2.4 branch stable -- but I'm still seeing way too
>> many problems being reported to consider any release of 2.4 for
>> production work.
> Well, the amount of problems being reported might be higher for 2.4. But
> this does not say anything about stability of your particular
> configuration. One of the reasons for more issues being reported for 2.4
> probably is that many deployments were already migrated to 2.4. So
> naturally if less people are using 2.3 there will be less issues
I would say I consider current 2.4.15 more stable than 2.3.43 when using
the same feature set. In particular because of numerous fixes for
issues that are currently found in 2.3.43. I of course have no idea
whether or not any of those fixes addresses your particular issue. I
haven't seen this, and all my installs use delta-syncrepl. I'm
wondering if it could be related however to ITS#5985. How many replicas
do you have total? If there are ones in particular that fall way
behind, do they end up falling back into full refresh mode?
I have a total of ten replica systems. All ten will wind up missing the
same updates. They don't realize that they have missed them. Their
contextcsn syncs up with the one on the master server.
I believe the changes are not being placed in the delta database
I'll be sure to check the accesslog database the next time the replicas
miss changes and see if those changes are listed there or not.
Frank Swasey | http://www.uvm.edu/~fcs
Sr Systems Administrator | Always remember: You are UNIQUE,
University of Vermont | just like everyone else.
"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)