Re: Deleted DNs, and the great quest.
--On Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:04 PM +0900 Jorgen Lundman
<lundman(a)lundman.net> wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> My only comment would be, if you want reliable replication, use
> delta-syncrepl.
>
Are you saying syncrepl is known to be broken? Or shoddy in general? I
find the whole issue that a "top level" of a tree can disappear, but the
tree itself still works to be troubling. Perhaps BerkeleyDB broken?
I'm saying that with delta-syncrepl, my replication experience has been
reliable. From what I see on the list, people who use normal syncrepl do
not have reliable replication.
I did look at delta-syncrepl, but it never ran very well, and seemed
quite over complicated for marginal gains. As I understood it, syncrepl
always sends entire records, whereas delta-syncrepl can update just the
attribute of a record. This did not sound like it would make any
difference. Is my understanding incorrect?
With delta-syncrepl, the changes are read directly out of a changes
database, in order. The gains are significant.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Sr. Member of Technical Staff
Zimbra, Inc
A Division of VMware, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration