Weird, I use a lot Innodb, and no issue, I even kill bravely the mysql
process with pkill -9 -f mysql
Y suppose the way drupal is being programed.
PHP open and closes database connections each time a webpage with db access
is issued.
When a php exceution ends and the apache webserver have
with INNODB tables
Weird, I use a lot Innodb, and no issue, I even kill bravely the mysql
process with pkill -9 -f mysql
Y suppose the way drupal is being programed.
PHP open and closes database connections each time a webpage with db
access is issued.
When a php exceution ends and the apache
Dear All,
Today i faced an issue while issuing commands on my innodb tables.
When I issued any drop table or alter table command my query gets into
waiting state for more than 15-20 minutes.
Mysql Version :-5.5.4 community
I researched on the issue and find that every command try to get lock
There is almost no reason to use LOCK TABLES on InnoDB tables.
I prefer to have auto_commit=1, then use explicit BEGIN and COMMIT for
clumps of statements that need ACID. I never use auto_commit=0.
Following those two rules, your issue with innodb_table_locks being on
goes away.
On 4/5/12
Am 15.03.2012 17:31, schrieb Malka Cymbalista:
We are running MySQL version 5.0.45 on a Linux machine. Most of our tables
are MyIASM but we have recently installed drupal 7 and drupal 7 requires
INNODB tables. Every now and then when we restart MySQL using the commands
/etc/init.d/mysql
. The subtle requirement for that is
disabling autocommit and of course using Innodb tables. For example, each
parent could insert rows with the status of PENDING and each child would then
do something like update tblA set status = 'READ' where status = 'PENDING'
limit 1. What this does, it picks
Hello,
I'm new here, so since this is my first question email, I'm looking for an
advice/help a way to do it or a link which can explain me more about my
related question.
[snip]
Carlos, you might have better luck if you break the problem down into smaller
pieces.. both to make it
Hello,
I'm new here, so since this is my first question email, I'm looking for an
advice/help a way to do it or a link which can explain me more about my
related question.
This is the thing:
Reciently I've made a backup of a database using INNODB, 1GB database, for
a web based - software (IEM
Hi All,
InnoDB repeatedly prints this message in the error log:
# InnoDB: Error: unlock row could not find a 4 mode lock on the record
Im not sure if the error message is critical or not, but its definitely not
nice to have in the error log.
After some exploration, I found this error
Sure you can, and you should.
but in case you also update/delete rows from the first table you have to
set up trigger to log changes.
if you are lucky (only inserts) then its easier.
Cheers
Claudio
2011/12/1 Angela liu yyll2...@yahoo.com
Hi, folks:
I have a situation:
A large innodb
how to break the table into 100,000 chunks?
thanks
From: Claudio Nanni claudio.na...@gmail.com
To: Angela liu yyll2...@yahoo.com
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: best way to copy a innodb
10-12 Santa Clara
http://www.percona.com/live/mysql-conference-2012/
El 01/12/2011, a las 23:16, Angela liu escribió:
Hi, folks:
I have a situation:
A large innodb table t1 with 45 million rows, need to have a new table t2
exactly the same as t1, to copy the data from t1 to t2, I have
Hi,
I have a support case with MySQL opened on this subject. Here is what we were
able to come up with.
1. Create the table with the primary key and unique key constraints defined
but no secondary indexes.
2. Bump up InnoDB logs to 2M and especially memory to the highest there can
Hi all.
From the Mysql Documentation:
If you attempt to enable read_only while other clients hold explicit table
locks or have pending transactions, the attempt blocks until the locks are
released and the transactions end. While the attempt to enable read_only is
pending, requests by other
What version do you use? David.
-Original Message-
From: Viacheslav Biriukov [mailto:v.v.biriu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 7:09 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Read_only and InnoDB transactions
Hi all.
From the Mysql Documentation:
If you attempt to enable
: Read_only and InnoDB transactions
Hi all.
From the Mysql Documentation:
If you attempt to enable read_only while other clients hold explicit table
locks or have pending transactions, the attempt blocks until the locks
are
released and the transactions end. While the attempt to enable
Biriukov [mailto:v.v.biriu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 9:20 AM
To: David Lerer
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Read_only and InnoDB transactions
MySQL Community Server 5.1.59 on the Centos 5.7
2011/11/28 David Lerer dle...@us.univision.commailto:dle...@us.univision.com
What
Hi All
Just a quick question relating to the use of transactions on
innodb tables.
We are doing some archiving on some innodb tables, however
there seems to be some issues somewhere in the process with data not
being updated accordingly.
We would like to make use
Am 25.11.2011 14:20, schrieb Machiel Richards - Gmail:
Just a quick question relating to the use of transactions on innodb tables.
We are doing some archiving on some innodb tables, however there seems to be
some issues somewhere in the
process with data not being updated accordingly
; 2011/11/22 12:44 -0800, Sean Sidelko
We just moved a large amount of data off one of our db servers to another one
(75gb of data). One thing I've noticed is that over the last couple days the
free innodb space has been decreasing by over 2.5 gb a day while we've only
been adding 400 mb
We just moved a large amount of data off one of our db servers to another one
(75gb of data). One thing I've noticed is that over the last couple days the
free innodb space has been decreasing by over 2.5 gb a day while we've only
been adding 400 mb of data a day to the db server.
I'm
In the show table status output, there is comment field labeled InnoDB
free. Can someone explain what kind of free space is counted in this figure?
Is it space that is not currently part of any segment? Does it include empty
pages within segments? Does it include unused space within pages
Hi,
The comment is just telling you how much free space is in your InnoDB
datafile(s). When that approaches 0, InnoDB will add the data file.
Image that there's a box, say it Innodb tablespace, this box is consist of
your data,
and innodb free is the same as the (capacity of your box - usage
it refers to free innodb tablespace.
From: Rozeboom, Kay [DAS] kay.rozeb...@iowa.gov
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:03 AM
Subject: InnoDB free - What does it really mean?
In the show table status output
Log sequence in the future means that, for whatever reason, the update in the
data pages
happened but update in the Innodb's log didn't.The InnoDB by itself,
without backups, is not
protected against media failures, and this happens to be just that.
Innodb_force_recovery is
not really
Am 06.11.2011 06:05, schrieb Kevin Wang:
I stopped mysql only to find that it wouldn't come back up, /etc/init.d/mysql
start only outputs . . . . . . failed. I've narrowed it down to an issue
with InnoDB. The database starts when innodb_force_recovery = 5 and nothing
lower. When I check
We have aded an internal domain, its assigned the latest id ( 20433), we
have safeguards in our portal that stop domains with id less than 5 from
being deleted, the table doesnt show 3 so it is not used, but when I try
alter the table it fails:
update virtual_domains set id='3' where id='20433'
2011/11/06 13:56 +1000, Edward avanti
#1451 - Cannot delete or update a parent row: a foreign key constraint
fails (`vmail`.`domain_admins`, CONSTRAINT `domain_admins_ibfk_1` FOREIGN
KEY (`domain_id`) REFERENCES `virtual_domains` (`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE)
In table domain_admins there is the
I stopped mysql only to find that it wouldn't come back up, /etc/init.d/mysql
start only outputs . . . . . . failed. I've narrowed it down to an issue
with InnoDB. The database starts when innodb_force_recovery = 5 and nothing
lower. When I check table for my MyISAM tables, they check fine
Am 04.11.2011 19:12, schrieb Ian Rubado:
Hi there,
I had the same issue as you posted about at the bottom of:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=20867
I was curious if you ever found a solution. I ended up converting tables to
MyIsam and flushing my innodb files to resolve
As noted in the title, I'm messing about a bit with InnoDB compressed tables.
As such, I found a rather glaring hole in the Internet: how the hell do you
turn compression off again? :-D
After messing about a lot and googling until my fingers hurt, I happened upon
this bug report: http
Nice one Johan, thanks for the info.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.bewrote:
As noted in the title, I'm messing about a bit with InnoDB compressed
tables. As such, I found a rather glaring hole in the Internet: how the hell
do you turn compression off again
The server hosting bacula and the database only has one kind of disk: SATA,
maybe I should buy a couple of SSD for mysql.
I have read all your mails, and still not sure if I should enable innodb
compression. My ibfile is 50 GB, though.
Regards
Maria
Questions:
1) Why are you putting
Am 14.09.2011 09:50, schrieb Maria Arrea:
I have read all your mails, and still not sure if I should enable innodb
compression
if you have enough free cpu-ressources and IO is your problem simply yes
because the transfer from/to disk will be not so high as uncompressed
signature.asc
| InnoDB | 10 | Compressed | 0 | 0 | 16384 | 0 | 16384 | 0 | 1 |
2011-09-14 10:33:04 | | | latin1_swedish_ci | | row_format=COMPRESSED
KEY_BLOCK_SIZE=16 | |
| CDImages | InnoDB | 10 | Compressed | 0 | 0 | 16384 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
2011-09-14 10:33:04 | | | latin1_swedish_ci | | row_format
Am 14.09.2011 14:50, schrieb Maria Arrea:
I have finally enabled compression:
I am still benchmarking, but I see a 15-20% performance gain after enabling
compression using bacula gui
as expected if disk-io is the only bottenleck
the same with NTFS-Compression inside a VMware Machine on
|
+++-++---++-+-+--+---++-+-+-+---+--+-+-+
| BaseFiles | InnoDB | 10 | Compressed | 0 | 0 | 16384 | 0 | 16384 | 0 | 1
| 2011-09-14 10:33:04 | | | latin1_swedish_ci | | row_format
x64. Our mysql has dozens of millions of lines, and we are
using InnoDB as storage engine for bacula internal data. We add hundred of
thousands lines /day to our mysql (files are incrementally backed up daily from
our 100 servers). So, we have a 7-8 concurrent writes (in different lines
I would recommend to go for a 15K rpm SSD raid-10 to keep the mysql data and
add the Barracuda file format with innodb file per table settings, 3 to 4 GB
of innodb buffer pool depending the ratio of myisam v/s innodb in your db.
Check the current stats and reduce the tmp and heap table size
of a database
page. To make room for other required database pages, InnoDB may “evict”
from the buffer pool an uncompressed page, while leaving the compressed page
in memory. Or, if a page has not been accessed in a while, the compressed
form of the page may be written to disk, to free space for other data
I'm not sure if this is the correct way to post, my apologies if it's not..
Anyway, I have a zabbix system on a mysql database where the ibdata1 file grew
to 93GB and filled up the disk. Restarting mysql results in:
/etc/init.d/mysql: ERROR: The partition with /var/lib/mysql is too full!
Quoting supr_star suprstar1...@yahoo.com:
This db is on its own partition, so I can't delete logs or anything
else to clear up space. So I moved ib_logfile0 and ib_logfile1
This is a really bad idea as will break all ur InnoDB databases. Do
you have space elsewhere on other partitions
, so I can't delete logs or anything
else to clear up space. So I moved ib_logfile0 and ib_logfile1
This is a really bad idea as will break all ur InnoDB databases. Do
you have space elsewhere on other partitions on the server? If yes
move the data file directories there and make a soft link
Olá pessoal.
Tenho um banco com tabelas originalmente myisam e algumas outras eu
converti para innodb. Estou tentando converter outras tabelas maiores
porém gostaria de fazer um teste primeiro, estava pensando em fazer
uma cópia fiel da base, ctrl+c/v da base em outra máquina para fazer o
teste
Hi,
if you want to copy from one server to another can't you just use
mysqldump? This is then restored via the mysql command using a pipe
or STDIN redirection. If you can shutdown the database for the
duration of the copy then you can do cold backup of all data files.
Both options will
not found the innodb files. Where are that files?
2011/5/27 a.sm...@ukgrid.net:
Hi,
if you want to copy from one server to another can't you just use
mysqldump? This is then restored via the mysql command using a pipe or
STDIN redirection. If you can shutdown the database for the duration
Quoting Yoshio geanyos...@gmail.com:
I can use mysqldump but its take many hours to complete a restore. I
can stop the server, so i'm think in a physical copy of the database.
But I have not found the innodb files. Where are that files?
InnoDB is a bit tricky, without going into details (I
think in a physical copy of the database.
But I have not found the innodb files. Where are that files?
InnoDB is a bit tricky, without going into details (I couldn't reliably
describe them anyway) doing an online backup by locking tables isn't
sufficient for InnoDB. The database must
Quoting Yoshio geanyos...@gmail.com:
I found the ibdata and logfiles, but outside from my database dir.
so basically I need copy everything in /var/lib/mysql/* ?
Yeah that's normal, they will be in the top level of your MySQL
datadir. Yep, copy everything. As I said, if you have any
Yes, InnoDB is the default storage engine for MySQL as of MySQL 5.5.MyISAM
and InnoDB has its own features.
InnoDB probably the best RDBMS out there. InnoDB is default engine might be
due nowadays most of the application required fully ACID-compliant modes,
self recovery from a crash, and many
Hiya
I think I read somewhere that Mysql 5.5 is defaulting on Innodb as its
default storage engine.
The question I would like to ask is. For those still running Mysql 5.0 /
5.1. Have any of you set the mysql default variable to be / use Innodb?
Regards
Brent Clark
--
MySQL General Mailing
On 2011-05-25 10:35:45 Brent Clark wrote:
I think I read somewhere that Mysql 5.5 is defaulting on Innodb as its
default storage engine.
The question I would like to ask is. For those still running Mysql 5.0 /
5.1. Have any of you set the mysql default variable to be / use Innodb?
Yes, I
Am 25.05.2011 10:35, schrieb Brent Clark:
Hiya
I think I read somewhere that Mysql 5.5 is defaulting on Innodb as its
default storage engine.
The question I would like to ask is. For those still running Mysql 5.0 / 5.1.
Have any of you set the mysql default
variable to be / use Innodb
2011/05/25 10:53 +0200, Reindl Harald
if there is no good reason i will never enable innodb because
MyISAM is enough for most web-apps
And also MyISAM supports auto-increment in a lesser part of a primary key and
InnoDB not--but although it is of interest, I have not tryed it.
--
MySQL
I hope someone can help me out here. I'm having trouble with some new
servers and memory allocation.
Some basic specs on the servers:
32GB total mem
2GB swap
64-bit RHEL
64-bit mysqld
overcommit_memory=2
mysql fails to start with 14GB innodb_buffer_pool_size
mysql will start with 12GB buffer
Dear All,
I have the following two system variable set in my MySQL configuration file
under mysqld section. But I am not fully understand what the two variable
internally does.
innodb_rollback_on_timeout=1
innodb_lock_wait_timeout=600
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks for Your Time
Mohan L
transaction
--Anupam K
From: Mohan L l.mohan...@gmail.com
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Tue, 29 March, 2011 12:54:12 PM
Subject: innodb system variable
Dear All,
I have the following two system variable set in my MySQL configuration file
under mysqld section. But I
- Original Message -
From: Adarsh Sharma adarsh.sha...@orkash.com
Dear all,
I have doubt regarding the storage structure for Innodb files :
Our database server has the following paths :
/dev/sda5 69G 35G 32G52% /hdd1-1
/dev/sdb1 274G 225G
From: Adarsh Sharma adarsh.sha...@orkash.com
Johan De Meersman wrote:
Interesting, but why like this instead of simply larger disks or raidsets ?
It's the IT-Admin Issue , I can't question that and we have only disks of
300GB ( SAS ).
Your admin is supposed to provide services that
Johan De Meersman wrote:
From: Adarsh Sharma adarsh.sha...@orkash.com
Johan De Meersman wrote:
Interesting, but why like this instead of simply larger disks or raidsets ?
It's the IT-Admin Issue , I can't question that and we have only disks of 300GB
( SAS ).
Your admin is
in RAID point.
Q:- What is your recommendations for number of ibdata files , would
it be
Make sure the disk /hdd2-1/innodb_data1 is big enough and it doesn't
affect performance.
Roughly, yes - file-per-table is only useful if you need to be able to reclaim
the space for non-InnoDB data; and I
You should use a simpl data path and create a separate tablespace for each
InnoDB file
innodb_data_file_path=ibdata1:10M:autoextend
innodb_file_per_table
This way, ibdata1 only contains the metadata and MVCC control data for all
InnoDB files and transactions
Awhile back, you ran a query
Dear all,
I have doubt regarding the storage structure for Innodb files :
Our database server has the following paths :
/dev/sda5 69G 35G 32G52% /hdd1-1
/dev/sdb1 274G 225G 36G 87% /hdd2-1
/dev/sdc5 274G 225G 36G 87% /hdd3-1
/dev/sdd5
a new data base, but I don't know that the two events are
related. Now all tables for RT report OK with mysqlcheck *except*
Attachments and Transactions. For those, any attempt to reference them
results in loss of the data base connection. Both tables are using INNODB.
# ./rt-validator -c
[Thu Feb
On 03/04/2011 09:24 PM, ed wrote:
On 03/04/2011 10:46 AM, Jerry Schwartz wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ed [mailto:eth...@earthlink.net]
[JS]snip
I guess wordwrap is going to mess this up;
mysql show engines ;
[JS] Next time, try
SHOW ENGINES\G
Regards,
I see no differences.
I have recently noticed I can not access a PHP application's data files,
and the errors I am getting seem to show that a recent update of the
distro (mandriva) no longer supports innodb, and this may be a reason
(if this is not some sort of catchall error). I would like to know how
to add
Hi ed, all!
ed wrote:
I have recently noticed I can not access a PHP application's data files,
and the errors I am getting seem to show that a recent update of the
distro (mandriva) no longer supports innodb, and this may be a reason
Which version were you using before, and which one are you
-Original Message-
From: ed [mailto:eth...@earthlink.net]
[JS] snip
I guess wordwrap is going to mess this up;
mysql show engines ;
[JS] Next time, try
SHOW ENGINES\G
Regards,
Jerry Schwartz
Global Information Incorporated
195 Farmington Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032
860.674.8796 /
On 03/04/2011 10:46 AM, Jerry Schwartz wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ed [mailto:eth...@earthlink.net]
[JS]snip
I guess wordwrap is going to mess this up;
mysql show engines ;
[JS] Next time, try
SHOW ENGINES\G
Regards,
I see no differences. thanks for the
Hi,
This is far more complicated than that. The buffer pool caches innodb
pages. Not only data and indexes are stored on innodb pages. For example
the undo log or the insert buffer are stored in innodb pages, therefore
they are cached by the buffer pool. The simple answer is: in the buffer
/#sql-1515_130f.frm' (errno: 150)
I have attached the create table syntax for both the parent and child tables
and the innodb status below. I am quite a newbie and want to know what I am
doing wrong.
My mysql version is mysql Ver 14.12 Distrib 5.0.51b, for
apple-darwin9.0.0b5 (i686) using readline
Hello Hari,
You already posted the best answer we could provide :)
On 2/22/2011 13:00, hari jayaram wrote:
Hi I am getting a Foreign key error .
...
I have attached the create table syntax for both the parent and child tables
and the innodb status below. ...
mysql show innodb status
Thanks shawn for your reply. Your simplification of the innodb status
message and this post which I just read (http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/221900
)
tells me what I am doing wrong.
I need the referenced column to be indexed. I guess one way of ensuring that
is to declare it as a primary key
=Innodb;
mysqlcreate TABLE child ( id int(16) , name varchar(128), parent_id
int(16))ENGINE=innodb;
mysql create index parent_id_fk ON parent (id);
And now the foreign key constraint works:
mysql ALTER TABLE child ADD CONSTRAINT child_parent_id_fk FOREIGN KEY
parent_id_fk (parent_id) REFERENCES
Does innodb buffer pool cache indexes and data in sub sets or in entirety?
I've heard people mention the buffer pool allocation is dependent on
the size of your tables and indexes.
Kyong
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http
Our incremental backups seem to be filling with instances of ib_logfile1,
ib_logfile2, and ibdata1.
I know that changing a single byte in a single INNODB table causes these files
to be touched.
I put innodb_file_per_table in /etc/my.cnf, but apparently, that only causes
new databases
Dump the entire DB, drop the DB, restore the DB.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Jan Steinman j...@bytesmiths.com wrote:
Our incremental backups seem to be filling with instances of ib_logfile1,
ib_logfile2, and ibdata1.
I know that changing a single byte in a single INNODB table causes
I wrote an article in www.stackoverflow.com about how to convert absolutely
every InnoDB table to .ibd and permanently shrink the ibdata1 file
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3927690/howto-clean-a-mysql-innodb-storage-engine/4056261#4056261
Enjoy !!!
Rolando A. Edwards
MySQL DBA (SCMDBA
Thanks, Rolando!
It's kind of a scary procedure (dump, drop, reload) that involves significant
down-time, but I guess it's necessary.
On 11 Feb 11, at 10:24, Rolando Edwards wrote:
I wrote an article in www.stackoverflow.com about how to convert absolutely
every InnoDB table to .ibd
Hi,
You can convert the tables themselves semi-online. Just do
set global innodb_file_per_table=1;
and no a no-operation alter on each table with alter table tablename
engine=innodb;
Note that the global variable is just a default, the currently connectd
threads will use the shared
I skimmed over this thread and I think I can help clarify the innodb,
rsync, and lvm situation.
The basic issue with just running rsync on the files under a running
mysqld is that the rsync
will copy different parts of files at different points in time. This
means that it could sync things
You need to quiesce the InnoDb background threads. One
technique is mentioned here:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/innodb-multiple-tablesp
aces.html
Just refreshing this topic a bit. Can anyone confirm that FLUSH TABLES
WITH READ LOCK is sufficient to quiesce the InnoBD background
FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK does work consistently on MyISAM and my
experience confirms this. I do remember reading something on this
list eons ago that asserted that it is not necessarily effective on
InnoDB due to it's multi-versioning.. uncommited transactions might be
caught
) was to use rsync on the live server for innodb files
(this phase took a very long time, but did not interfere with
operations). The result of this phase was, as you would
expect, a set a seriously broken files which were notheless
very similar to the correct files.
When that phase was complete, I
://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/alter-table-problems.html
If you use ALTER TABLE on a transactional table or if you are using Windows or
OS/2, ALTER TABLE unlocks the table if you had done a LOCK TABLE on it. This
is done because InnoDB and these operating systems cannot drop a table
And you will build your business on a hotcopy with external
tools beause you do not trust replication? laughable!
Do what you want, but dont come back and cry if all goes down
You were told in which way you can use rsync with minimum
downtime or that replication can be used to stop only
is running and after a repair table
on the destination machine all tables are useable
With InnoDB it is much difficult because table spaces
Eeven with innodb_file_per_table there are dependencies
of the table-files and ibdata1 in the main datadir
If there is only a minimal problem it is possible
* flush atbles
* rsync while mysqld is running
* stop mysqld
* second rsync
Unless we can verify 100% that there is a safe way to do it without
shutting down MySQL, then I'm sure the approach you described above is
the one we will end up with. Thanks for your input.
--
Eric Robinson
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Robinson, Eric eric.robin...@psmnv.comwrote:
You need to quiesce the InnoDb background threads. One technique is
mentioned here:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/innodb-multiple-tablesp
aces.html
Look for the section talking about clean
You need to quiesce the InnoDb background threads. One
technique is
mentioned here:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/innodb-multiple-tablesp
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/innodb-multiple-tablesp
aces.html
Look
Am 25.01.2011 05:37, schrieb Robinson, Eric:
Is there a way to safely backup an InnoDB database using rsync?
Not without stop mysqld
Foregt it, do not try it and stop searching if you do not waste time
If you understand how innodb works you will see that
this is not possible by design
your
the master are applied
See my comment above. (But also we cannot stop them as long as we want
because the slaves are used for running reports. Using my approach, each
slave is down for about 30 seconds. The masters are not brought down at
all.)
If you understand how innodb works you will see
2011/1/25 Robinson, Eric eric.robin...@psmnv.com:
your whole solution is crippled because why in the world are
you killing your salves and reinit them without any reason daily?
There is a very good reason: it is the phenomenon of row drift. The
master and slave can appear to be in good sync,
. This in itself doesn't really pose a problem for
backups, though, afaik ?
I'm starting to worry that you may be right. I know FLUSH TABLES WITH
READ LOCK does not work as expected with InnoDB, but is there really no
It doesn't, exactly, no; but afaik no actual data will be written. Some
at all.
and if you running a clean solution the salves are never down
but is there really no way to put InnoDB into a state where all
changes have been flushed to disk and it is safe to rsync the directory?
no, it is a database and not designed for access from external software
as long
jesus christ nobody cares if they are binary replica as long
as the data is consistent and ident
Actually, I can see this being an issue if you're using LVM snapshot backups
or another similar technique - if the datafiles aren't all identical you
won't be able to restore to any machine from a
On 1/25/2011 8:00 AM, Robinson, Eric wrote:
your whole solution is crippled because why in the world are
you killing your salves and reinit them without any reason daily?
There is a very good reason: it is the phenomenon of row drift. The
master and slave can appear to be in good sync, but
Why don't you use a Maatkit solution like mk-checksum to
ensure that your slaves have identical data with the master?
I looked at Maatkit a year or so ago. It looked pretty interesting, but
then I started reading the disclaimers carefully and they scared the
bejeepers out of me. Warnings about
Am 25.01.2011 15:56, schrieb Johan De Meersman:
jesus christ nobody cares if they are binary replica as long
as the data is consistent and ident
Actually, I can see this being an issue if you're using LVM snapshot backups
or another similar technique - if the datafiles aren't all identical
-Original Message-
From: vegiv...@gmail.com [mailto:vegiv...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Johan De
Meersman
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:56 AM
To: Reindl Harald
Cc: Robinson, Eric; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: InnoDB and rsync
jesus christ nobody cares if they are binary replica
201 - 300 of 5209 matches
Mail list logo
