I agree with that, I&#39;ve been using delta-syncrepl here for a while and its much more reliable than syncrepl IMO. I did not found any consistency issue with the replication so far.<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br>
</div><div>Matheus Morais</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/4/27 Quanah Gibson-Mount <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:quanah@zimbra.com">quanah@zimbra.com</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">--On Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:01 PM +0200 Michael Ströder &lt;<a href="mailto:michael@stroeder.com" target="_blank">michael@stroeder.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Correct.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Couldn&#39;t this be the cause for delta-syncrepl to seem more reliable than<br>
normal syncrepl (without slapo-accesslog)?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I don&#39;t think so, because that is on the master, not on the replicas. Replicas still get changes in the order they were written to the master (supposedly anyhow. ;) ).<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
--Quanah<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
Quanah Gibson-Mount<br>
Sr. Member of Technical Staff<br>
Zimbra, Inc<br>
A Division of VMware, Inc.<br>
--------------------<br>
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>