This is two upgrades done in sequence(the reload takes about three hours
per machine) . I can do what I am proposing in parallel.
Do you see it as problematic?
~Lawrence
Tom Worster wrote:
How about:
1 shut down the slave, upgrade it, restart it, let it catch up.
2 shut down the master, upgrade it, restart it, let the slave catch up.
?
On 1/12/10 12:34 PM, "Lawrence Sorrillo" <sorri...@jlab.org> wrote:
Hi:
I want to upgrade a master and slave server from mysql 4.1 to mysql 5.1.
I want to so something like follows:
1. Stop all write access to the master server.
2. Ensure that replication on the slave is caught up to the last change
on the master.
3. stop binary logging on the master.
4. stop replication on the slave.
5. dump the master, stop old 4.1 server, start new 5.1 server and reload
master dump file under 5.1 server ( binary logging is turned off)
6. dump the slave, stop old 4.1 server, start new 5.1 server and reload
slave dump file under 5.1 server.
7. After loading is complete, test then start binary logging on master
while still preventing updates to updates.
8. After loading slave, test then start slave (get configs in place and
restart server).
I am thinking that in this scenario I dont have to bother with recording
binlog file names and position etc etc.
That both servers will have the same databases abd replication and
binary logging will start on the two databases with no data loss and
continue forward.
Comments?
~Lawrence
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
