On 05/25/2016 08:47 AM, Ludwig Krispenz
wrote:
On 05/24/2016 07:00 PM, thierry
bordaz wrote:
On 05/24/2016 05:24 PM, Ludwig
Krispenz wrote:
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
Ok. I get it. thanks.
An other question regarding the update of buf_consumer_ruv.
My understanding is that it contains the initial consumer RUV.
But later it is used in
clcache_refresh_consumer_maxcsns/clcache_refresh_local_maxcsn to
fill consumer_maxcsn.
consumer_maxcsn are updated with the non skipped updates to
reflect the current status of the consumer.
But when consumer_maxcsns/clcache_refresh_local_maxcsn are
called my understanding is that consumer_maxcsn are reset with
buf_consumer_ruv (initial consumer RUV).
Do I get it right ?
no :-) At least I think I have implemented it differently.
The consumer_maxcsn is set in clcache_refresh_consumer_maxcsns(),
which is only called at the first buffer load, not at the
relaod.
In clcache_refresh_local_maxcsns it is only set if we
have to add a RID to the cscb list, but then no change for this
rid was sent before.
OK thanks for the explanation.
I was wondering if consumer_maxcsn could go back to
buf_consumer_ruv but in those cases (first load and first update
on known RID) it is right.
Just minor comments on clcache_load_buffer.
- 'rc' should be tested against CLC_STATE_* values not 0.
- if clcache_initial_anchorcsn or clcache_adjust_anchorcsn
return let's say CLC_STATE_CSN_GT_RUV, in clcache_load_buffer
it will return a CLC_STATE_* value not a DB_* value.
- clcache_refresh_consumer_maxcsns is only called at first load,
why not including/inlining it into clcache_initial_anchorcsn
Thanks
thierry
thanks
thierry
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
--
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
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
