--On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:42 PM -0400 Dave Macias
wrote:
No, using syncrepl. Should we move to delta-syncrepl?
Due to ITS#8125 which can't be fixed until 2.5, it's essentially mandatory
if you want reliable replication in the 2.4 series.
I can agree with that. We are using the
> You need to upgrade, 2.4.44 is about 4.5 years old and numerous significant
> bugs have been fixed with replication since then. It's absolutely unsafe
> to use 2.4.44 for MPR (also, I'm going to assume you're correctly using
> delta-syncrepl). 2.4.51 is the current release, change log is here:
>
--On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 6:54 PM -0400 Dave Macias
wrote:
Hi Dave,
Currently running 2.4.44 with n-way multi-master setup with rfc2307
schema.
You need to upgrade, 2.4.44 is about 4.5 years old and numerous significant
bugs have been fixed with replication since then. It's absolutely
Hello,
Hope everyone is staying safe and healthy.
Currently running 2.4.44 with n-way multi-master setup with rfc2307 schema.
We have tested rfc2307bis before on our lab environment with no issues but
never deployed to production.
Some of the benefits I remember about this test is the cool fea
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 at 19:10, Howard Chu wrote:
> ext4 with data=journal should never be used, it hides unrecoverable fsync
> errors, as
> discussed here https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc20/presentation/rebello
> (but also see my notes on their work, their testing methods aren't quite right
>
Gábor Melis wrote:
> The documentation of MDB_NOSYNC says:
>
> If the filesystem preserves write order and the MDB_WRITEMAP flag
> is not used, transactions exhibit ACI (atomicity, consistency,
> isolation) properties and only lose D (durability).
>
> In practice, what file system + o
The documentation of MDB_NOSYNC says:
If the filesystem preserves write order and the MDB_WRITEMAP flag
is not used, transactions exhibit ACI (atomicity, consistency,
isolation) properties and only lose D (durability).
In practice, what file system + options preserve write order?
Ask
