Re: size of bdb database, master vs replica

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

--On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:06 AM +0200 Jehan Procaccia 
<jehan.procaccia@tem-tsp.eu> wrote:

> Le 21/05/2012 18:33, Quanah Gibson-Mount a Ãcrit :
>
> --On Monday, May 21, 2012 3:15 PM +0200 jehan procaccia
> <jehan.procaccia@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