Re: size of bdb database, master vs replica

[jehan procaccia <jehan.procaccia@it-sudparis.eu>]

Le 22/05/2012 18:47, Quanah Gibson-Mount a Ãcrit :
> --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.
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 .