Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Wednesday, April 27, 2011 7:41 PM +0200 Michael Ströder > <[email protected]> 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.
