Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 17:00 -0800, Richard Yen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Wondering if it's okay to drop listen entries (in an effort to sculpt >> my cluster). I have a very small cluster that needs to replicate >> quickly, but there are 15 or so nodes, so all the cross talk across >> the network (sync_interval == 500) is generating a lot of load. >> >> I know that in the past, STORE PATH was modified to imply a STORE >> LISTEN as well. As a result, it looks like the sl_listen table >> contains entries for nodes that the local node doesn't need to listen >> to. Furthermore, since the data set is very small (on the order of < >> 100MB), we don't anticipate ever needing to fail over or switch >> provider. >> >> Would doing DROP LISTEN on the "unnecessary" nodes create any >> undesirable side effects? > > You should drop the uneeded paths. The listen entries will be reshaped > accordingly.
I mirror Brad's sentiment. If you drop unnecessary paths (e.g. - run DROP PATH), *that* is the better way to reduce the number of listen entries. -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.sailifa.ac" "@" "enworbbc")) <http://dba2.int.libertyrms.com/> Christopher Browne (416) 673-4124 (land) _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
