Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Wednesday, April 27, 2011 7:41 PM +0200 Michael Ströder michael@stroeder.com wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
From what I see on the list, people who use normal syncrepl do not have reliable replication.
Frankly this sounds scary! Especially since you have more knowledge of the internals here... :-/
With delta-syncrepl, the changes are read directly out of a changes database, in order. The gains are significant.
IIRC with delta-syncrepl all write operations are serialized. Yes?
Correct.
Couldn't this be the cause for delta-syncrepl to seem more reliable than normal syncrepl (without slapo-accesslog)?
This improves performance significantly over normal syncrepl. It may seem counter intuitive, and yet it reduces the contention in the underlying database. I tested this heavily in the past. ;)
I've read the results of your tests before. Many thanks for that.
Ciao, Michael.