[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: 2.2 -> 2.3: syncproc, syncrepl production quality?

> > The issue fixed with syncrepl itself in 2.3.22 was most particularly
> > affecting one person with an interesting setup, but it is always
> > worthwhile to run a version with the fix than to not have it, I think....
[and]
> Was this Aaron's problem with the delete / adds ?  I was getting
> something similar and, when using refresh and persist some entries just
> never updated.

My problems with session logs have been resolved in 2.3.23. If you run 2.3
with syncprov-sessionlog set to non-zero you DEFINITELY want 2.3.23
installed--yesterday.

I'm not sure how "interesting" a setup is necessary to hit this. Maybe one
of the developers can chime in on the exact config necessary (it's more of
exact conditions; it's an if statement not tripping), but the bug was in
code that gets executed whenever you have a session log configured. Now, I
know that anybody wanting serious performance nowadays is looking at
delta-syncrepl, but slog gives you a bit of a shot with minimal config,
and has been around for a long time now--I'd expect more of them out there.


> Does anybody else have any experience to share regarding the production
> quality of the sync-repl code?

Well, I've been using syncrepl in production since 2.2.15, although it was
pretty painful until 2.2.21. I maintain MUCH better debug builds now; if I
wrote my 2.2.15 problem report with the tools I currently use, the ITS
probably would have been closed in under a week rather than five point
releases. It's been touch and go, but I still wouldn't want to go back to
slurpd. To be explicit, some of the design limitations in slurpd are a
real pain to workaround in our (and this part I'll admit to being)
"interesting" setup, whereas syncrepl handles them fine. It's also VERY
nice for slaves to come and go ad hoc, rather than having to edit the
slurpd config file.

2.3.7 -> 2.3.21 wasn't painful, but the session log bug did result in
desync'd slaves.

I still wouldn't want to go back to slurpd.