Re: Deleted DNs, and the great quest.

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com>]

--On Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:04 PM +0900 Jorgen Lundman 
<lundman@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