jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From AdamR <adam.r...@runbox.com>
Subject Re: Clustering with database replication
Date Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:29:13 GMT

AdamR wrote:
> On the master, the local_revisions table contains one row for itself,
> which obviously always contains the latest revision ID. The table does not
> contain any data for the other cluster nodes (the MySQL replication only
> works in one direction), which it has no knowledge about. As far as I can
> tell this table is only used to determine which items from the journal
> need to be processed on each node, therfore so long as each node's copy of
> the local_revisions table has itself in, it should be fine?

Hmm, I just discovered the RevisionTableJanitor. This would be problematic
as the cluster journal would constantly get cleaned-up before the slave
nodes have a chance to update themselves. However, I think everything will
be fine if I keep this turned off and run periodic manual clean-ups instead.
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Clustering-with-database-replication-tp25132305p25132565.html
Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

View raw message