Le 03/02/15 09:41, Howard Chu a écrit : > Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: >> Le 03/02/15 05:11, Howard Chu a écrit : >>> Another option here is simply to perform batching. Now that we have >>> the TXN api exposed in the backend interface, we could just batch up >>> e.g. 500 entries per txn. much like slapadd -q already does. >>> Ultimately we ought to be able to get syncrepl refresh to occur at >>> nearly the same speed as slapadd -q. >> >> Batching is ok, except that you never know how many entries you'll going >> to have, thus you will have to actually write the data after a period of >> time, even if you don't have the 500 entries. > > This isn't a problem - we know exactly when refresh completes, so we > can finish the batch regardless of how many entries are left over.
True for Refresh. I was thinking more specifically of updates when we are connected. The idea of pushing the expected number of updates within the cookie is for information purposes : having this number traced in the logs/monitored could help in some cases where the refresh phase takes long : the users will not stop the server thinking it has stalled. > > Testing this out with the experimental ITS#8040 patch - with lazy > commit the 2.8M entries (2.5GB data) takes ~10 minutes for the refresh > to pull them across. With batching 500 entries/txn+lazy commit it > takes ~7 minutes, a decent improvement. It's still 2x slower than > slapadd -q though, which loads the data in 3-1/2 minutes. Not bad at all. What makes it 2x slower, btw?
