Re: SOLVED: Problem with *very* slow replication, FreeBSD 6.2

2007-11-05 Thread Bob Bankay X-AST : 7731^29u18e3
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

Re: SOLVED: Problem with *very* slow replication, FreeBSD 6.2

2007-11-04 Thread Baron Schwartz
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. Th

Re: SOLVED: Problem with *very* slow replication, FreeBSD 6.2

2007-11-04 Thread Christopher E. Brown
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 shoul

SOLVED: Problem with *very* slow replication, FreeBSD 6.2

2007-11-02 Thread Christopher E. Brown
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

Re: Problem with *very* slow replication

2007-10-29 Thread Christopher E. Brown
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 us

AW: AW: Slow Replication

2005-02-13 Thread Hannes Rohde
CTED] Cc: mysql@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 l

Re : Slow Replication

2005-02-11 Thread Bruce Dembecki
"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 an

Re: Slow Replication

2005-02-11 Thread Gleb Paharenko
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

Re: AW: Slow Replication

2005-02-10 Thread Alec . Cawley
"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 > bottlen

AW: Slow Replication

2005-02-10 Thread Hannes Rohde
treff: 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:[EMA

RE: Slow Replication

2005-02-10 Thread Mechain Marc
eudi 10 février 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

AW: Slow Replication

2005-02-10 Thread Hannes Rohde
Slemko [mailto:[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 o

Re: Slow Replication

2005-02-10 Thread Marc Slemko
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

Slow Replication

2005-02-09 Thread Hannes Rohde
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 In

Re: Slow replication question/problem

2001-09-07 Thread Jeff Adams
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

Re: Slow replication question/problem

2001-09-06 Thread Jeremy Zawodny
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 f

Slow replication question/problem

2001-09-05 Thread Jeff Adams
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 o