Paul DuBois wrote:
At 12:00 +1000 9/9/03, Daniel Kasak wrote:
It's been suggested that I add 'enable-locking' to the [mysqld] section of my.cnf.
You might want to reconsider. It's disabled by default on all systems as of MySQL 4, and was disable by default before that on Linux.
I see.
I had always thought that locking would be a good idea for us.
We have 40 or so people on a LAN, running MS Access XP front-ends, and some web clients as well. Many of the Access front-ends are in 'datasheet' mode - ie where users can see multiple records on the one screen.
I don't understand what external locking is supposed to give you here. Its primary use is for allowing multiple servers that access the same data directory to cooperate, or to allow mysqld and programs like myisamchk to cooperate. But both of these are inherently dangerous propositions unless the OS file locking is perfectly reliable.
You're describing a system involving (I think) one server and a bunch of clients. This is the normal case, and the server handles contention among clients using its own internal locking, which should be sufficient.
Why is locking disabled and not recommended? I had a look on the web site, and saw a few pages on locking, but didn't find any mention of locking being disabled.
See:
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/System.html
Note the part about Linux.
I found the source of the '--skip-locking' switch - it was in the mysqld_safe scripts. Thanks for that :)
I haven't removed it yet - I'm thinking about it. See above...
-- Daniel Kasak IT Developer * NUS Consulting Group* Level 18, 168 Walker Street North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060 T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: http://www.nusconsulting.com
-- Paul DuBois, Senior Technical Writer Madison, Wisconsin, USA MySQL AB, www.mysql.com
Are you MySQL certified? http://www.mysql.com/certification/
-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
