> > Also even after we re-converted all the slave's Inno tables back to > > MyISAM it *still* lagged out. Only after I disabled the > Inno engine > > entirely did the problem abate. > > > > Any ideas why? Does InnoDB use resources even if there are no > > active tables using the engine? > > This is most confusing. You're not using InnoDB *at all* and it was > slowing down the slave? > > What InnoDB options had you set in my.cnf anyway?
[mysqld] (replication commands omitted) set-variable = query_cache_size=512M set-variable = key_buffer=512M set-variable = max_allowed_packet=4M set-variable = table_cache=64 set-variable = sort_buffer=4M set-variable = record_buffer=4M set-variable = thread_cache=8 set-variable = tmp_table_size=128M set-variable = thread_concurrency=4 set-variable = myisam_sort_buffer_size=128M set-variable = max_connections=1800 set-variable = max_connect_errors=100000 set-variable = wait_timeout=30 set-variable = max_binlog_size=500000000 set-variable = long_query_time=1 #innodb_data_home_dir = /var/opt/mysql/innodb #innodb_log_group_home_dir = /var/opt/mysql/innodb log-error=db3-log #log-slow-queries skip-innodb i spoke too soon - the slave still lags behind the master but the problem is not nearly as bad as it was with InnoDB enabled. it seems like the combined weight of replicating and serving tons of selects causes it to fall behind. if we disable selects for a few seconds, it catches up again. we need to add a second slave. (i've ordered two more just to be safe.) mysql needs synchronous replication. we're going to eval the EMIC clustering product in the next few weeks. i hope it works. -jsd- -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
