I've got two Linux x86 servers: master and slave, both with MySQL 4.0.20
from the same package. On the master I do:
SET CHARACTER SET cp1250_latin2;
UPDATE `my_tab` SET `my_field`='my_cp1250_string';
and got this in both master's and slave's log.
On master the data is properly translated into lati
ERROR: Error in Log_event::read_log_event(): 'Event too big', data_len:
1597257529, event_type: 49
ERROR: Could not read entry at offset 240378281 : Error in log format or
read error
On the master it's reporting this error. The data_len is 1.48 GB which
is an error. I know that this is not the
We have two 4.0.15 mysql servers set up as master and slave for each other
on HP-UX PA-RISC and Itanium.
A<->B
When using the "HP-UX PA-RISC 2.0, 64-bit only" release, we have problems
with replication. Even though it should have (and "SHOW SLAVE STATUS"
reports) the other server as master, the in
Hello,
About a week ago I created two databases on the master mysql engine while
the slave engine was off.
After that I tried to start the slave mysql engine and I received an error
message and in some seconds the slave service shuts down.
After I copied the database from the master database fold
Let me clean up my grammar and explanation a bit. I rushed the email
message.
-->-Original Message-
-->From: Dathan Vance Pattishall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 5:26 PM
-->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Subject: bug in replication?
-->
-->
Before I send this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would like to see if anyone
else is hitting a replication bug in 3.23.5x
Last_Errno Last_error
4294967295 | error 'unexpected success or fatal error' on query 'UPDATE
member_stats1 SET view7=0'
Notice the Errno, it's the not the errorno for the error
;and re-start the slave thread with "mysqladmin start-slave".
>We stopped at log 'www-bin.006' position 40034
> 020128 14:55:04 Slave thread exiting, replication stopped in log
> 'www-bin.006' at position 40034
>
k('xx');
>Fix:
on the slave: set sql_slave_skip_counter=1 ; slave start
>Submitter-Id:
>Originator:Anton kornexl
>Organization:
Universitaet Passau
>MySQL support: email support
>Synopsis: Bug in Replication
>Severity: serious
>Priority: m
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 02:28:32PM -0500, Wendell Dingus wrote:
> You might have just hit the nail on the head.. Server1 is
> replicating everything to server2 but it is only saving changes to
> one particular database. Those changes are being manually gathered
> via mysqlbinlog and sent to serve
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug in replication 3.23.46-max
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 10:34:03PM -0500, Wendell Dingus wrote:
>
> I've tried this a bunch of times and different ways and can confirm
> that in the 3-server setup I described an alter table does NOT
> propogate. Can't see i
le?
Jeremy
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:23 PM
> To: Wendell Dingus
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug in replication 3.23.46-max
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:59:07PM -0500, Wende
ust adding a
field to a table or similar do not.
Thanks...
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:23 PM
To: Wendell Dingus
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug in replication 3.23.46-max
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:59:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:59:07PM -0500, Wendell Dingus wrote:
>
> I'm fairly certain this is a bug. It's on 3.23.46-max and the
> changelog for .47 doesn't mention it.
>
> I have 2 servers using replication. Server1 is used by client
> machines and all updates are to it. Server2 stays in perfec
I'm fairly certain this is a bug. It's on 3.23.46-max and the changelog for
.47 doesn't mention it.
I have 2 servers using replication. Server1 is used by client machines and
all updates are to it. Server2 stays in perfect sync with it and logs all
updates to it's own binary log. I then use mysql
Hello, everyone:
I need your help tracking down one rather rare and difficult to repeat bug in
replication. I have had at least two users report a condition when the slave
was 13 bytes off on its position in the master. One user was able to supply
the appropriate binary log, which turned out
Maybe I'm not understanding how replication is supposed to work, but I've found a
situation where it definitely does not log changes. I'd just like to know if this is
normal or not.
Say you have two databases (call them data1 and data2) on your master server. Only
data1 is being replicated
Leonardo Dias wrote:
>
> "Mayville, Jeffrey" wrote:
> >
> > I keep seeing users asking about a problem they are having with replication
> > (I ran into the bug myself). I saw a message a week or so ago acknowledging
> > the bug and noting that it was self-inflicted (while cleaning up code) and
>
"Mayville, Jeffrey" wrote:
>
> I keep seeing users asking about a problem they are having with replication
> (I ran into the bug myself). I saw a message a week or so ago acknowledging
> the bug and noting that it was self-inflicted (while cleaning up code) and
> has been corrected. The problem w
I keep seeing users asking about a problem they are having with replication
(I ran into the bug myself). I saw a message a week or so ago acknowledging
the bug and noting that it was self-inflicted (while cleaning up code) and
has been corrected. The problem will not exist in the next release (.33
Well, your version is 5 versions old.
A lot of replication fixes have been applied since then.
Try compiling the current version.
root wrote:
>
> >Description:
> As i wrote before, there's a bug with the replication in mysql. If the server is
>once stopped, it will not read properly the informa
>Description:
As i wrote before, there's a bug with the replication in mysql. If the server is once
stopped, it will not read properly the informations stored in master.info. The
IP-number is in this case 0. Mysqld will then write the error-message to the log-file
AND will not stop writing it!
>Description:
my error-log show me "Can't connect ... on '206709' (22)(107) retry in 3306 sec
And really, it is connecting 3306 seconds later. Obviously, this is the port-number
and the delay should be 60 seconds
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
>Submitter-Id:
>Originator:root
>Or
22 matches
Mail list logo
