Running on our systems, we have had the replica load data and then
started. The longest delta was about 28 hours behind the master. The
slave status faithfully reported how far behind the master it was, when
the slave was started, even as it was loading its relay-logs from the
master which
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, bob b wrote:
Good to hear that you found the problem.
The only remaining puzzle is why the replica reported that it was up to date
when it was several binlogs behind.
Possibly the replica was always caught up with the last entry from the very
slow link.
Perhaps you
Christopher E. Brown wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, bob b wrote:
So, a slave is down for 8hrs. It comes online and pulls the binlog in
120 seconds. The seconds behind master does not reflect 8hrs, but how
many seconds (at current processing rate) before the slave finishes the
relay logs.
The
An update for those actually paying attention.
I have been fighing unusual performance issues with replication between
FreeBSD 6.2 machines.
The unusual part is that while replication would never top 10 writes per
second (even while the master was taking hundres of writes per second),
the
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not sure that I get the whole picture.
We have been running replication since about 4.0 and we have been through
several upgrades and are now at 5.0.27.
The 'show slave status' always gives us an accurate reflection of where it is
at which is
@lists.mysql.com
Betreff: Re: AW: Slow Replication
Hannes Rohde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/02/2005 11:44:13:
I don't think we are dealing with an IO bottleneck here because the
slave server should quite faster with writings to the disc at least
since we
are using Raid 0 here
Hello.
The outputs of the following statements would be helpful, if you want that
somebody helps you:
SHOW MASTER STATUS;
SHOW SLAVE STATUS;
SHOW STATUS;
Execute them on the master and the slave.
Hannes Rohde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
We use MySQL as a
Hannes Rohde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
innodb_data_file_path=ibdata1:2G:autoextend
innodb_buffer_pool_size=1200M
innodb_additional_mem_pool_size=20M
May not solve the replication issue, but if this is a 4GByte server that is
dedicated to MySQL (ie you aren't using memory for anything
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:07:19 +0100, Hannes Rohde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
We use MySQL as a database backend on a portal site. We have a two
database server setup (one master, one slave). The master is a PIV 3,2 GHz.,
2 GB Ram and a 80GB Raid-1 system. The slave is a PIV 3.2
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Februar 2005 11:24
An: Hannes Rohde
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Betreff: Re: Slow Replication
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:07:19 +0100, Hannes Rohde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
We use MySQL as a database backend on a portal site. We have a two
2005 11:46
À : 'Marc Slemko'
Cc : mysql@lists.mysql.com
Objet : AW: Slow Replication
I don't quite get what you mean with the second paragraph. Do you
mean increasing the thread concurrency to 6 or something like that? I have
already put it on 4 because we do have HT active on the cpu
: RE: Slow Replication
I think he is talking about the innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit parameter.
Try to put it at a value of 0.
innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 0
If you have an IO bottleneck, this may help.
Marc.
-Message d'origine-
De : Hannes Rohde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé
Hannes Rohde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/02/2005 11:44:13:
I don't think we are dealing with an IO bottleneck here because the
slave server should quite faster with writings to the disc at least
since we
are using Raid 0 here. Or is there any way which could explain an IO
bottleneck
Hi all,
We use MySQL as a database backend on a portal site. We have a two
database server setup (one master, one slave). The master is a PIV 3,2 GHz.,
2 GB Ram and a 80GB Raid-1 system. The slave is a PIV 3.2 GHz., 4 GB Ram and
a 80GB Raid-0 system. Both run on MySQL 4.1.9 and only use
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 03:43:00PM -0500, Jeff Adams wrote:
Greetings,
This morning we sucessfully inserted a new record on our master
MySQL machine. 4 1/2 hours later, the change showed up on the
slaves. I was under the impression that MySQl replication would
occur in a more timely
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
snip
Are subsequent inserts just as slow to replicate?
Can you show us the output of SHOW SLAVE STATUS and maybe the my.cnf
files of the master and a slow slave?
Jeremy
Thanks for the response. Below is the info you requested. If there's
anything else that
Greetings,
This morning we sucessfully inserted a new record on our master MySQL
machine. 4 1/2 hours later, the change showed up on the slaves. I was
under the impression that MySQl replication would occur in a more timely
fashion.
We have a single master with 4 slaves replicating only one
17 matches
Mail list logo
