I installed mysql from the 9.0 CD's
everything was ok during install.
did a service mysql start
and get the following error message:
030123 19:18:50 mysqld started
030123 19:18:51 Can't start server : Bind on unix socket: Permission denied
030123 19:18:51 Do you already have another mysqld ser
On Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 07:41:19PM -0600, jerry wrote:
> I installed mysql from the 9.0 CD's
> everything was ok during install.
>
> did a service mysql start
> and get the following error message:
>
> 030123 19:18:50 mysqld started
> 030123 19:18:51 Can't start server : Bind on unix socket: Pe
On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 21:41, jerry wrote:
> I installed mysql from the 9.0 CD's
> everything was ok during install.
>
> did a service mysql start
> and get the following error message:
>
> 030123 19:18:50 mysqld started
> 030123 19:18:51 Can't start server : Bind on unix socket: Permission deni
On Thursday 23 January 2003 09:06 pm, Adolfo Bello wrote:
I don't *HAVE* a my.cnf
should I have one? should one of these packages i installed have one?
here is the packages that I installed:
MySQL-client-3.23.52-1.2mdk
MySQL-bench-3.23.52-1.2mdk
php-mysql-4.2.3-1mdk
libmysql10-3.23.52-1.2mdk
perl
Hi Jerry,
I had a similar problem with mysql. In my my.cnf I had the database path
pointing to the wrong path. Please check if your database path points to
an existing database.
Cheers
-Sridhar
jerry wrote:
I installed mysql from the 9.0 CD's
everything was ok during install.
did a service m
On Thursday 23 January 2003 07:41 pm, jerry wrote:
well i finally found the problem.
the main problem was the permissions on /var/lib/mysql
after pouring over the post install instructions in the manual, and after
searching for my error, i found this:
when mysql rpm's are installed:
/var/lib/my
On Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 11:15:03PM -0600, jerry wrote:
> well i finally found the problem.
> the main problem was the permissions on /var/lib/mysql
>
> after pouring over the post install instructions in the manual, and after
> searching for my error, i found this:
>
> when mysql rpm's are insta
On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 14:30, Vincent Danen wrote:
> On Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 11:15:03PM -0600, jerry wrote:
> You don't need a my.cnf. I don't use one (never have) and have never
> had a problem because I don't have one. Mind you, MySQL may not be
> optimized without it, but it isn't necessary for
On Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 03:21:52PM -0400, Adolfo Bello wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 14:30, Vincent Danen wrote:
> > On Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 11:15:03PM -0600, jerry wrote:
>
> > You don't need a my.cnf. I don't use one (never have) and have never
> > had a problem because I don't have one. Mind
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Good afternoon, Vincent!
On Saturday 25 January 2003 02:52 pm, Vincent Danen wrote:
> Actually, speaking of which, has anyone used 4.x at all? Any initial
> reactions to it compared to 3.x?
I set it up on one of my internal systems last weekend, an
On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 18:52, Vincent Danen wrote:
> True, but last I checked, we haven't touched MySQL 4.x yet so it's a
> moot point until we move to 4.x (ie. cooker has 3.23.54a which should
> be updated to .55 shortly).
>
> Actually, speaking of which, has anyone used 4.x at all? Any initial
Hi.
On Sat 2003-01-25 at 15:52:48 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 03:21:52PM -0400, Adolfo Bello wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 14:30, Vincent Danen wrote:
> > > On Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 11:15:03PM -0600, jerry wrote:
> >
> > > You don't need a my.cnf. I don't use one
On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 14:52, Vincent Danen wrote:
> On Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 03:21:52PM -0400, Adolfo Bello wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 14:30, Vincent Danen wrote:
> > > On Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 11:15:03PM -0600, jerry wrote:
> >
> > > You don't need a my.cnf. I don't use one (never have) and
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 03:02, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
> PS: I completely agree regarding my.cnf. For 08/15 usage there is no
> need for it.
Gosh, something new every day! What does 08/15 usage mean?
__
/ \\ @ __ __@ Adolfo Bello <[EMA
On Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 03:33:01PM -0800, Dave Laird wrote:
> > Actually, speaking of which, has anyone used 4.x at all? Any initial
> > reactions to it compared to 3.x?
>
> I set it up on one of my internal systems last weekend, and the only
> conclusions I have reached, thus far, are thus:
>
>
On Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 09:20:41PM -0400, Adolfo Bello wrote:
> > True, but last I checked, we haven't touched MySQL 4.x yet so it's a
> > moot point until we move to 4.x (ie. cooker has 3.23.54a which should
> > be updated to .55 shortly).
> >
> > Actually, speaking of which, has anyone used 4.x
On Sun Jan 26, 2003 at 08:02:53AM +0100, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
[...]
> > > This is true as long as you don't need transactions, rollbacks, commits,
> > > referencial integrity (in version 4.0.9) and so on.
> > > Without /etc/my.cnf you are restricted to MYISAM and BDB tables.
> >
> > True, bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
'Evening, Vincent...
On Sunday 26 January 2003 08:58 pm, Vincent Danen wrote:
> Looking forward to seeing it. So the MySQL team considers 4.x stable
> now? Do they recommend using it over 3.x?
The last time I looked (last week or two) it was liste
On Sun Jan 26, 2003 at 09:10:12PM -0800, Dave Laird wrote:
> > Looking forward to seeing it. So the MySQL team considers 4.x stable
> > now? Do they recommend using it over 3.x?
>
> The last time I looked (last week or two) it was listed as BETA-Stable, but
> other than having to regenerate the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Good morning, Vincent...
On Monday 27 January 2003 10:55 am, Vincent Danen wrote:
> Ok... I'll wait until it goes stable then, although I might throw it on
> my workstation just to play with some of the new features and such.
If I can help or offer
On Mon Jan 27, 2003 at 12:55:07PM -0800, Dave Laird wrote:
> > Ok... I'll wait until it goes stable then, although I might throw it on
> > my workstation just to play with some of the new features and such.
>
> If I can help or offer any assistance don't hesitate to drop a note on this
> mailing
Hi.
On Sun 2003-01-26 at 21:58:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> I've heard it's supposed to run faster, but never saw any benchmarks.
> Faster is better... =)
How about
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,293,00.asp
which tests MySQL 4.0.1 and MySQL AB's summary of the latter:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Good evening, Benjamin...
On Monday 27 January 2003 06:11 pm, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
> How about
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,293,00.asp
> which tests MySQL 4.0.1 and MySQL AB's summary of the latter:
>
> http://www.mysql.com/ewee
On Mon 2003-01-27 at 19:02:20 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> > That would be rather be at least 6 weeks, because since 2002-12-14
> > (v4.0.6) MySQL is declared gamma.
>
> That's about right, actually. I was going to check back, to see if the
> development status had changed in the inter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Good evening, Benjamin...
On Monday 27 January 2003 07:56 pm, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
> You are aware that 4.0.9 is current?
Yes, as of this evening, I became aware of it. God, how time
flies when you're having too much fun!
> So it's also poss
25 matches
Mail list logo
