Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Database corruption repair tool
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
References: <56A945B8.20706@gmail.com> <56A95A63.1050104@gmail.com>
 <8D5F7E3237B3ED47B84CF187BB17B6661487A61C@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <56AB179D.5000407@gmail.com>
 <8D5F7E3237B3ED47B84CF187BB17B6661487A9AB@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Emmanuel_L=c3=a9charny?= <elecharny@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56AB80F6.2070707@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:10:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <8D5F7E3237B3ED47B84CF187BB17B6661487A9AB@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Le 29/01/16 15:51, Zheng, Kai a écrit :
>>> I'm most certainly overdoing : the first step is to start the server, which is all but a good idea. I have to simply read the configuration instead, because this is all what I need.
> You mean it doesn't have to use or start a server to run the repair process, right. 

Right. We just need to know where to find the data, and which index are
to be recreated. This is described in the configuration partition. We
also have to know about the schema, thus be able to read it.

> If so it sounds good, because purely running a repair tool against the database would be easy to use. Later it can also be a healthy check tool.

Ideally, we should be able to start the server in repair mode. This is
what we do when we define a new index : you don't have to create the
index files, it's done at startup (actually, this is automatic, we see
that an index table is missing, and we create it).

That makes me thing that a repair mode would be much simpler than
starting the server with a 'repair' parameter : it's enough to delete
all the indexes, they will be recreated at startup !!! (Actually, t
won't work simply because we recreate the user index, not the system
indexes, but the idea is brillant : we just have to check the system
index and rebuild them if missing... I'll do that this week-end !)

Thanks Kai : you again proved that discussing a pb is the best way to
see a better way to deal with it :-)