On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Jan Steinman wrote:
> > From: "Jangita"
> >
> > I do not think there is anything wrong with having one huge file is
> there?
>
> There is if you're doing incremental back-ups, in which case adding one
> byte to that file costs you 50GB of backup space.
>
That is
> From: "Jangita"
>
> I do not think there is anything wrong with having one huge file is there?
There is if you're doing incremental back-ups, in which case adding one byte to
that file costs you 50GB of backup space.
You don't have to take insults personally. You can sideste
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Vokern wrote:
> Can I upgrade to innodb_file_per_table smoothly?
>
When you activate it, the db will keep reading and using your existing
innodb datafiles. All new tables will be created using .ibd files.
Converting your existing tables is done table per table us
Hi Vokern,
On a running MySQL Server enabling *innodb_file_per_table* makes no changes
to the existing tables. The newly created table (innodb) will be affected
and have thier own .ibd and .frm tables.
Although, you can enable smoothly. But it's better to have it from scratch.
So, that you can re
2010/9/28 Krishna Chandra Prajapati :
> Hi Vokern,
>
> I suggest to have a single ibdata1 file and use innodb_file_per_table to
> have multiple .ibd tables.
>
Can I upgrade to innodb_file_per_table smoothly?
thanks.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
T
That's a very good point, actually, as that will also immediately free the
space from tables you delete.
My instincts say that it's marginally slower, though; although honestly I
don't have any data to support that. Does anyone have benchmarks about that
?
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Krishn
Hi Vokern,
I suggest to have a single ibdata1 file and use *innodb_file_per_table* to
have multiple .ibd tables.
_Krishna
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Vokern wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Currently I have the setting:
>
>
> innodb_data_file_path=ibdata1:10G;ibdata2:10G;ibdata3:10G;ibdata4:10G:autoe
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Vokern wrote:
> 2010/9/28 Jangita :
>
> >
> > I do not think there is anything wrong with having one huge file is
> there?
> > We have one innodb file of 85GB on ext3.
>
In and of itself, there is no problem with that. You may, however, prefer
multiple smaller f
2010/9/28 Jangita :
>
> I do not think there is anything wrong with having one huge file is there?
> We have one innodb file of 85GB on ext3.
> Is there?
>
but how about the problem on the file has been increasing continuously?
thanks
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lis
--
From: "Carlos Proal"
You have to round the size of the last data file (ibdata4) and add the
new ones.
You can find more information on the manual:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/innodb-configuration.html
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman
You have to round the size of the last data file (ibdata4) and add the
new ones.
You can find more information on the manual:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/innodb-configuration.html
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/adding-and-removing.html
Carlos
On 9/28/2010 12:59 AM, Vokern wr
Hello,
Currently I have the setting:
innodb_data_file_path=ibdata1:10G;ibdata2:10G;ibdata3:10G;ibdata4:10G:autoextend
Because the last file of ibdata4 is very large (more than 50G), if I
want extend the data to more files, for example, ibdata5, ibdata6...
how to do it?
Thanks!
--
MySQL Gener
12 matches
Mail list logo
