Re: Deleted DNs, and the great quest.

[Michael StrÃder <michael@stroeder.com>]

Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Wednesday, April 27, 2011 7:41 PM +0200 Michael StrÃder
> <michael@stroeder.com> wrote:
> 
>> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>>> From what I see on the list, people who use normal syncrepl
>>> do not have reliable replication.
>>
>> Frankly this sounds scary!
>> Especially since you have more knowledge of the internals here... :-/
>>
>>> With delta-syncrepl, the changes are read directly out of a changes
>>> database, in order.  The gains are significant.
>>
>> IIRC with delta-syncrepl all write operations are serialized. Yes?
> 
> Correct.

Couldn't this be the cause for delta-syncrepl to seem more reliable than
normal syncrepl (without slapo-accesslog)?

> This improves performance significantly over normal syncrepl.
> It may seem counter intuitive, and yet it reduces the contention in the
> underlying database.  I tested this heavily in the past. ;)

I've read the results of your tests before. Many thanks for that.

Ciao, Michael.