On 05/24/2016 04:20 PM, thierry bordaz
wrote:
Hi Ludwig,
Thanks for your explanation. The design looks very good. I think
it would be good to put into the code (especially
clcache_adjust_anchorcsn) the reference to the related design
paragraph.
There is something I do not understand in clcache_skip_change.
My understanding is that this is the only place where the
consumer_maxcsn is updated.
But there are several conditions, if we decide to skip the update
that the consumer_maxcsn is not updated.
One of them is 'rid == buf->buf_consumer_rid'.
Does that mean that the consumer_maxcsn remains unchanged for the
RID of the consumer ?
the condition is:
if( rid == buf->buf_consumer_rid &&
buf->buf_ignoreConsumerRID)
so it will only be skipped if we determined that we don't need to
send anything for the consumers own rid
thanks
thierry
On 05/24/2016 09:22 AM, Ludwig
Krispenz wrote:
Hi,
On 05/23/2016 06:29 PM, thierry
bordaz wrote:
On 05/23/2016 03:06 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
This is the latest version of the
"changelog buffer processing" fixes.
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48766
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48766/0001-reworked-clcach-buffer-code-following-design-at-http.patch
The background for the fix is here, I would like to get
feedback on this as well to clarify what is unclear
http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/changelog-processing-in-repl-state-sending-updates.html
Hello Ludwig,
I have not yet reviewed the patch. I was looking at the
design.
Regarding your note: http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/changelog-processing-in-repl-state-sending-updates.html#special-case-rid-of-the-consumer-in-the-current-replication-session.
If you refer to this part:
Special
case: RID of the consumer in the
current replication session
If the consumer in the replication session is also a master
its RID will be contained at least
in the consumerRUV. If it is also in
the supplier RUV the question is if
it should be considered in the decision if updates should be
sent. Normally a master has the latest changes applied to
itself, so there would be no need to check and send updates
for its RID. But there can be
scenarios where this is not the case: if the consumer has been
restored from an older backup the latest csn for its own RID might be older than changes
available on other servers.
NOTE: The current implementation ignores anchorCSNs based on the consumer RID. If, by chance, the anchor csn used is older than this csn, the changes will be sent, but they also ca nbe lost.
this referres to the "current" implementation before the fix,
the doc started as a post-design doc, and it shoul dbe
correctedd
with the fix the if the supplier has newer changes for the
consumerRID than the consumer it will be reflected in the anchor
csn calculation.
It is said that the anchorCSN will not be the from the
consumerRID. What is the mechanism that guaranty that the
consumer will receive all the updates it was the originator ?
thanks
thierry
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill
|
