Re: Replication issue
First make sure that the max_allowed_packet setting is the same on both masters. Make sure that setting is active on the slave in question. Then start replication or bounce the master (not sure which I did to fix this the last time I ran into this). Elizabeth Mattijsen = On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Carl wrote: I am running master - master replication between two locations using MySQL version 5.1.41 on Slackware Linux 13 (64bit). The problem from show slave status is: Last_Error: Relay log read failure: Could not parse relay log event entry. The possible reasons are: the master's binary log is corrupted (you can check this by running 'mysqlbinlog' on the binary log), the slave's relay log is corrupted (you can check this by running 'mysqlbinlog' on the relay log), a network problem, or a bug in the master's or slave's MySQL code. If you want to check the master's binary log or slave's relay log, you will be able to know their names by issuing 'SHOW SLAVE STATUS' on this slave. Skip_Counter: 1 Exec_Master_Log_Pos: 552321409 Relay_Log_Space: 165412833 Until_Condition: None Until_Log_File: Until_Log_Pos: 0 Master_SSL_Allowed: No Master_SSL_CA_File: Master_SSL_CA_Path: Master_SSL_Cert: Master_SSL_Cipher: Master_SSL_Key: Seconds_Behind_Master: NULL Master_SSL_Verify_Server_Cert: No Last_IO_Errno: 1236 Last_IO_Error: Got fatal error 1236 from master when reading data from binary log: 'log event entry exceeded max_allowed_packet; Increase max_allowed_packet on master' Last_SQL_Errno: 1594 Last_SQL_Error: Relay log read failure: Could not parse relay log event entry. The possible reasons are: the master's binary log is corrupted (you can check this by running 'mysqlbinlog' on the binary log), the slave's relay log is corrupted (you can check this by running 'mysqlbinlog' on the relay log), a network problem, or a bug in the master's or slave's MySQL code. If you want to check the master's binary log or slave's relay log, you will be able to know their names by issuing 'SHOW SLAVE STATUS' on this slave. I have tried telling it to skip that transaction (set global sql_slave_skip_counter = 1) to no avail. From what I have been able to determine from searching the Internet, it appears that the replication is failing replicating blobs ahich are basically jpg's of members. If I understand the problem, it is caused by blob containing a character which is the same character that is used to mark the end of a transaction in the bin log. My questions: 1) Is this a reasonable/correct analysis and 2) how do I work around the issue? Thanks, Carl -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: High disk usage
FWIW, I've found MySQL information_schema related features to be quite useless when you're dealing with that many tables. Not only do they take long, they also activate a lot of locks (or so it seems). So I created a script that runs every minute on each db server that basically does an ls in the data directory, writes a text file and then loads that file into a table. Then you need to use SELECT in that table to find out which tables there are. YMMV. Elizabeth Mattijsen === On Feb 10, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Santiago Soares wrote: Hello, thanks for your answers. All of my tables are MyISAM. I found out that the application runs a lot of 'show tables' commands. These commands take a lot of time to run, due to the high number of tables (~160k). Is there anything I can do to make 'show tables' run faster? Santiago Soares Fone: (41) 8488-0537 On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.bewrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Santiago Soares santiagosoa...@gmail.com wrote: With a show global status I see a strange behavior: | Open_files| 286 | | Opened_files | 1050743 | At this time the database has just started (about 10 minutes). That's quite a lot for ten minutes, yes. Increasing the open table cache, query cache and/or index cache might help, depending on data size, table types (I'd assume mostly InnoDB based off your pool size), et cetera. Basically it's a matter of finding out why you open and close so many files, as that's likely to be one of the causes of the I/O waits. -- Bier met grenadyn Is als mosterd by den wyn Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Several languages for content
On Nov 27, 2009, at 4:34 PM, Miguel Vaz wrote: This is my first post, and could use some points of view on the subject. Have a project that will have several languages for its records, for places, for example, whose names and descriptions will be in 3 languages. Have already read several sites about it but always end up with several perspectives: 1 - Tables for each language: places_pt, places_en, places_es, with fields: id, name, description; Seems superfluous, but will leave less records on each table, although adding a great amount of tables, the more languages i have; 2 - Rows for each language: id, lang, name, description - the field lang will have pt, en or es, and when displaying, i will have to lookup the active language and get the proper record; Will add tremendously to the record #; 3 - Fields for each language: table places, with fields: id, name_pt, name_en, name_es, description_pt,description_en,description_es - not likely to add a new language, but still adding new field adds complexity. Is there a proper way to do things? Any usual way of handling several languages on a project? Any help is highly appreciated, thanks. This really depends on whether you have all content available in all languages. And if not, how you want to fall back to other languages. And how often you add new languages. Liz -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Several languages for content
On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:17 PM, Miguel Vaz wrote: My 3rd option seems to be the most simple, although i admit it doesnt sound quite right. Having fixed table fields for languages doesnt seem correct. Well, it all depends. If you need to add a column later, you need to do an ALTER TABLE. In a production environment, that may be killing (do you want your website to be down for 30 minutes why you do an ALTER TABLE ?? ). Then again, if that table isn't updated a lot, you could build another version with the extra column, and do an atomic rename to put it in place. It all depends on your environment... Liz -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle, Sun and MySQL
On Nov 11, 2009, at 9:34 AM, John Daisley wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 23:50 -0600, Peter Brawley wrote: European regulators agree with Monty that the Oracle-Sun deal threatens database competition. Apparently Oracle means to play hardball. Meanwhile Sun revenue fell 25% in 3rd quarter 2009; who else but an anti-competitive giant would take a chance on buying Sun now? Story here: http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14840272; source=features_box1. What I am more concerned about at the moment is how much the uncertainty over the deal is hurting MySQL? I was recently in a project planning meeting where MySQL was dismissed completely because nobody could give guarantees about where MySQL was going. There were a lot of concerns over where future development would go and a fear that when the deal goes through Oracle may slowly raise support and training costs to the sort of levels applicable to Oracle database products. These kind of arguments seem impossible to counter for as long as the uncertainty continues and I for one wish they would just resolve the situation either way very quickly because its hurting my business and open source software! Please remember that there are 3rd parties offering MySQL support already now, outside of MySQL AB. I'm pretty sure that should Oracle raise these prices, 3rd parties will take up that part of the market pretty quickly. Liz -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Msql-Mysql-modules vs. DBD-mysql?
At 03:14 PM 8/13/02 -0400, Don wrote: What is the difference between the 2 modules, Msql-Mysql-modules and DBD-mysql? The Msql-Mysql modules are an old implementation of Perl access to MySQL, intended to be compatible with the even older Msql database engine. The past 5 years have seen the development of DBI, a standard database interface between Perl and a great many database engines, of which MySQL is but one. The Msql-Mysql modules are currently implemented as a compatibility layer on top of DBD::mysql. They should work the same as the old modules. Personally, never had any problems using the compatibility layer, while some of my code is going back to 1995 without any change. Hope this helps. Liz - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: blob versus file
At 09:42 AM 7/3/02 +0100, Tim Ward wrote: I was thinking more of an application like an access control system, where there might be tens of thousands of photographs of people, each a jpeg of a small number of K, or a catalogue, again with thousands of tiny photos. The experiment I did with 500,000 operating system files was to see whether smallish blobs (bits of text, in this case, which I didn't need to search or index) were better stored as disk files or in an SQL Server database. The database won hands down on all counts. Not meaning to put down MySQL, but have you tried this also with a ReiserFS filesystem? I had a similar number of files, about 70 GByte worth on an ext2 filesystem. Moved them to a ReiserFS filesystem and found I only needed 51 GByte. And got a much faster system... The main gain of MySQL is probably that MySQL packs the data tighter together, which in the end causes fewer hard disk head movents and less data to be transferred. And if you use indexes, your directory searches are binary chops rather than linear searches. ReiserFS does that also, but at a file system level. If you need to port your application to the outside world where you don't have control over your file systems, MySQL would be the way to go for this application. If you _do_ have control over the filesystem being used and you can use ReiserFS and you don't need MySQL specific features, then I wouldn't be so sure. Just my 2 eurocents worth... Liz - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
