9:47 a.m.
--On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:06 AM +0200 Jehan Procaccia
<jehan.procaccia(a)tem-tsp.eu> wrote:
Le 21/05/2012 18:33, Quanah Gibson-Mount a écrit :
--On Monday, May 21, 2012 3:15 PM +0200 jehan procaccia
<jehan.procaccia(a)it-sudparis.eu> wrote:
ok __dd.xxx files are memory mapped files,
then which is the file(s) that contains the database ? I suspect
id2entry.bdb, but why on the master the size in KB is:
195412 id2entry.bdb
and on the slave
32 id2entry.bdb
It doesn't look to me like your replica is replicating at all. Have you
done a slapcat of the two and verified they are identical?
--Quanah
Ok, then I did a slapcat on a replica and to my big surprise, before I
did the slapcat, bdb files on the replica were very small, then as soon
as I did the slapcat (while slapd is off), now they are similar in size
to the master !?
Do we need to run regularly slapcat on replicas in order to "really"
replicate ?
No. It sounds like you don't have a checkpoint directive set for your
database. You should fix that.
--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
3:24 a.m.
New subject: size of bdb database, master vs replica
Le 22/05/2012 18:47, Quanah Gibson-Mount a écrit :
--On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:06 AM +0200 Jehan Procaccia
<jehan.procaccia(a)tem-tsp.eu> wrote:
> Le 21/05/2012 18:33, Quanah Gibson-Mount a écrit :
>
> --On Monday, May 21, 2012 3:15 PM +0200 jehan procaccia
> <jehan.procaccia(a)it-sudparis.eu> wrote:
>
>
> ok __dd.xxx files are memory mapped files,
> then which is the file(s) that contains the database ? I suspect
> id2entry.bdb, but why on the master the size in KB is:
> 195412 id2entry.bdb
> and on the slave
> 32 id2entry.bdb
>
>
> It doesn't look to me like your replica is replicating at all. Have you
> done a slapcat of the two and verified they are identical?
>
> --Quanah
>
>
>
> Ok, then I did a slapcat on a replica and to my big surprise, before I
> did the slapcat, bdb files on the replica were very small, then as soon
> as I did the slapcat (while slapd is off), now they are similar in size
> to the master !?
> Do we need to run regularly slapcat on replicas in order to "really"
> replicate ?
>
No. It sounds like you don't have a checkpoint directive set for your
database. You should fix that.
You are right, now that I added
checkpoint 200 240
in the slapd.conf, bdb files are bigger !
in fact my old repicas in 2.3 had that directive in global configuration
whereas apparently in 2.4 that directive must be in a database
definition, that's probably why I missed that one during the migration
process .
thanks .
8:56 a.m.
New subject: size of bdb database, master vs replica
--On May 24, 2012 12:24:37 PM +0200 jehan procaccia
<jehan.procaccia(a)it-sudparis.eu> wrote:
> No. It sounds like you don't have a checkpoint directive set
for your
> database. You should fix that.
>
You are right, now that I added
checkpoint 200 240
in the slapd.conf, bdb files are bigger !
in fact my old repicas in 2.3 had that directive in global configuration
whereas apparently in 2.4 that directive must be in a database
definition, that's probably why I missed that one during the migration
process .
It had to be in a database definition in 2.3 too. But slapd(.conf) has
always been kind in re-arranging things for the admin so they make sense.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra, Inc
--------------------
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
4216
days inactive
4218
days old
openldap-technical@openldap.org
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
jehan procaccia -
Quanah Gibson-Mount