Thank you for answer. The problem is that I wrote in previous message
that there is no sql backup just the files for binary backup. Hardware
we are using is a simple laptop with Windows 7 that runs 5.1 server in
case the originally installed files are in use. It runs an 5.5 server
paralelly as
Am 05.08.2015 um 17:06 schrieb Csepregi Árpád:
150805 17:02:31 InnoDB: Page dump in ascii and hex (16384 bytes):
hex...
150805 17:02:31 InnoDB: Page checksum 1094951825, prior-to-4.0.14-form
checksum 1449969277
InnoDB: stored checksum 1467223489, prior-to-4.0.14-form stored checksum
87759728
2013/11/21 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
Am 21.11.2013 13:51, schrieb Paul Halliday:
Had a system crash this morning and I can't seem to get mysql back up
and running. This is the error:
InnoDB: Progress in percent: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
It was indeed corruption :/ what a day. I was able to move everything
over to another partition and have managed to get mysql up and running
again. There was a single file I could not, an .idb (the ,.frm is
there). Is it possible to fix this from ibdata or the logs?
Thanks.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013
What is the best way to backup your database. Which are the files that
I need to store on a usb disk
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
Hello Nick,
On 11/21/2013 10:32 AM, Nick Cameo wrote:
OOoopppsss! I do mean for recovery/continual backup. I will do it
manually, but basically get all the data on a USB disk and be able to
recover/move it (the data) on another machine, the same machine etc..
I hope I did not just open up a
Am 21.11.2013 18:59, schrieb Paul Halliday:
It was indeed corruption :/ what a day. I was able to move everything
over to another partition and have managed to get mysql up and running
again. There was a single file I could not, an .idb (the ,.frm is
there). Is it possible to fix this from
OOoopppsss! I do mean for recovery/continual backup. I will do it
manually, but basically get all the data on a USB disk and be able to
recover/move it (the data) on another machine, the same machine etc..
I hope I did not just open up a can of worms. We just went live and
this post gave me a
Am 21.11.2013 13:51, schrieb Paul Halliday:
Had a system crash this morning and I can't seem to get mysql back up
and running. This is the error:
InnoDB: Progress in percent: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41
What's the MySQL error log have to say?
- Original Message -
From: Luis H. Forchesatto luisforchesa...@gmail.com
To: Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July, 2013 3:39:55 PM
Subject: Re: InnoDB problem.
Yep, I do backup of /home/mysql/ib* files too :D
What
-
From: Luis H. Forchesatto luisforchesa...@gmail.com
To: Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July, 2013 6:34:47 PM
Subject: Re: InnoDB problem.
The error log:
130723 10:04:23 [ERROR] Plugin 'InnoDB' init function returned error.
130723 10:04:23 [ERROR] Plugin 'InnoDB
Did you change innodb_log_file_size?
-Original Message-
From: Johan De Meersman [mailto:vegiv...@tuxera.be]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:57 AM
To: Luis H. Forchesatto; mysql list
Subject: Re: InnoDB problem.
Eek.
No immediate clue here, but maybe someone else does - so please
-Original Message-
From: Johan De Meersman [mailto:vegiv...@tuxera.be]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:57 AM
To: Luis H. Forchesatto; mysql list
Subject: Re: InnoDB problem.
Eek.
No immediate clue here, but maybe someone else does - so please keep the
list in CC at all times
: Re: InnoDB problem.
2013/7/23 Rick James rja...@yahoo-inc.commailto:rja...@yahoo-inc.com
Did you change innodb_log_file_size?
innodb_log_file_size error always appears in the logs...he only posted a few
lines of his log...but I guess (or I want to believe) he's gone through the
whole log
- Original Message -
From: Luis H. Forchesatto luisforchesa...@gmail.com
Subject: InnoDB problem.
Permission and owner of the table files (.frm files) are ok, since it
recognizes MyISAM tables (they have the same permission).
Oops. You should always read the fine manual.
You took
Radecki radecki.ra...@gmail.com
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Innodb innodb_buffer_pool_size?
Hi Rafal,
I am trying to set the best value for innodb_buffer_pool_size. My system
has 6GB of ram.
My question: how to tell if my innodb_buffer_pool_size is ok
? the best value is as large as the
expected dataset, more is wasting system ressources
-Original Message-
From: Claudio Nanni claudio.na...@gmail.com
Sent: 16-05-2013 14:12
To: Rafał Radecki radecki.ra...@gmail.com
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Innodb
Sorry I failed to specify ghatna is only applicable when the database is quiet
large.
Vikas
-Original Message-
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
Sent: 16-05-2013 14:43
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Innodb innodb_buffer_pool_size?
Am
Am 16.05.2013 10:11, schrieb Rafał Radecki:
I am trying to set the best value for innodb_buffer_pool_size. My system has
6GB of ram.
innodb_buffer_pool_size = 1024M
Size of innodb tables:
du -h /mysql/ibdata1
1.8G/mysql/ibdata1
in the best case innodb_buffer_pool_size as big as
Am 16.05.2013 13:31, schrieb Ilya Kazakevich:
hwo would a innodb_buffer_pool larger than the whole database make
anything better? the best value is as large as the expected dataset, more is
wasting system ressources
You also may need space for adaptive indexes, locks etc so it is
Hi Rafal,
I am trying to set the best value for innodb_buffer_pool_size. My system
has 6GB of ram.
My question: how to tell if my innodb_buffer_pool_size is ok?
If this is a MySQL dedicated server,
In your case I would set it to 2GB-3GB.
You will have the whole data in RAM now and for some time.
-Original Message-
From: Rick James
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:08 PM
To: 'Jeremy Chase'; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: InnoDB interaction between secondary and primary keys.
secondarykey and redundantkey are redundant with each other -- in all
versions of InnoDB.
One
secondarykey and redundantkey are redundant with each other -- in all versions
of InnoDB.
One expert said that redundant key would have two copies of `1`,`2`. I think
he is wrong. I believe the two are the same in size.
There is a subtle change in 5.6 that _may_ make a _few_ queries work
The hint of a change is in here (search for secondary):
http://jorgenloland.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/favorite-mysql-56-features-optimizer.html
-Original Message-
From: Rick James
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:08 PM
To: 'Jeremy Chase'; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: InnoDB
Nothing looks bad.
96G for the buffer_pool is bigger than I have experienced, but I know of no
reason for it to fail (given that you have 128GB of RAM).
-Original Message-
From: Tom [mailto:livefortheda...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:17 PM
To:
Hi Tom,
I am assuming nothing relevant shows up in dmesg, right?
I have experienced random crashes like that and most of them turned to
be HW issues - hard disk and memory banks related.
Is it a HW RAID? Have you tried looking at the controller logs? (Megacli).
And yes, corrupted tables would
2012/10/4 Andrew Miklas and...@pagerduty.com
Hi guys,
I recently had a data corruption issue with InnoDB. MySQL was shut down
improperly (power failure), and when the system came back up, MySQL refused
to start. On inspection of the logs (see below), it looks like the
tablespace became
Hi Manuel,
Thanks for the fast reply.
On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Manuel Arostegui wrote:
snip
it shouldn't be a biggie if you have a BBU. Do you guys use HW RAID + BBU?
We've checked with our hosting provider, and the database was indeed stored on
a BBU RAID.
What's your
: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: InnoDB corrupt after power failure
Hi Manuel,
Thanks for the fast reply.
On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Manuel Arostegui wrote:
snip
it shouldn't be a biggie if you have a BBU. Do you guys use HW RAID +
BBU?
We've checked with our hosting provider
Hi Rick,
On Oct 4, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Rick James wrote:
I hope you turned OFF caching on the drives, themselves. The BBU should be
the single place that caches and is trusted to survive a power outage.
The DB server in question is running in a virtualized environment, so the array
shows up
To: Rick James
Cc: Manuel Arostegui; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: InnoDB corrupt after power failure
Hi Rick,
On Oct 4, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Rick James wrote:
I hope you turned OFF caching on the drives, themselves. The BBU
should be the single place that caches and is trusted to survive
Hi!
Manuel == Manuel Arostegui man...@tuenti.com writes:
Manuel 2012/9/19 Mark Haney ma...@abemblem.com
I hope this doesn't end in some kind of flame war. I'm looking to
optimize my tables (and performance in general) of the DB my web app is
using. I'm tweaking things a little at a time,
2012/09/19 13:44 -0700, Rick James
http://mysql.rjweb.org/doc.php/myisam2innodb
Also, InnoDB enforces foreign-key constraints, MyISAM not.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
2012/9/19 Mark Haney ma...@abemblem.com
I hope this doesn't end in some kind of flame war. I'm looking to
optimize my tables (and performance in general) of the DB my web app is
using. I'm tweaking things a little at a time, but I'm curious as to what
the rest of the MySQL list thinks about
: Manuel Arostegui [mailto:man...@tuenti.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:51 PM
To: Mark Haney
Cc: mysql mailing list
Subject: Re: InnoDB vs. other storage engines
2012/9/19 Mark Haney ma...@abemblem.com
I hope this doesn't end in some kind of flame war. I'm looking to
optimize
Johnny Withers wrote:
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
Wow, I hope this hasn't been hanging out in the mysql list server for a
year.
I completely forgot about this problem. Thanks for the info though. I've
been running this server with overcommit_memory=0 and a 42GB buffer pool
for a while now.
Thanks again!
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Charles
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
; 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 of
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 a
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
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.
no, this
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
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
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
Hi All
innodb_rollback_on_timeout=1
Specifies when there is transaction open by session and not committed, If such
session is inactive for long time, MySQL by default kicks out such session and
transaction perform by session would be rollback
innodb_lock_wait_timeout=600
Specify wait for
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
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
to
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 in an
In one extreme instance, having a few terabytes of data
across several instances (on distinct hosts), I was required
to do a full-refactoring data migration with an absolute
limitation on allowable downtime.
Among the technique which I used (and I can't take credit for this
one) was to
Am 28.01.2011 17:04, schrieb Robinson, Eric:
Just refreshing this topic a bit. Can anyone confirm that FLUSH TABLES
WITH READ LOCK is sufficient to quiesce the InnoBD background threads
per Shawn's message above?
Damned start your brain, read documentations and hear what peopole say
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
Am 28.01.2011 22:30, schrieb Robinson, Eric:
Our current model has been working well since 2006. We will be careful
to verify the reliability of any proposed changes.
Have a great day!
this is ok because MyISAM is so simple that you can even without any
flushes make a copy while the server
* 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 for the
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
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 often it is not
actually the case. For this
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,
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Robinson, Eric eric.robin...@psmnv.comwrote:
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
Interesting. I
Am 25.01.2011 15:00, schrieb Robinson, Eric:
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,
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
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 often it is not
actually the case.
... sounds interesting; have you got any document explaining
this phenomenon? AFAIK, the things that (silently) break
nobody cares if they are binary replica as long
as the data is consistent and ident
Like I said, I'm no expert on this, but my approach seems like the only
way to 100% absolutely sure that the data on the slave is in fact
consistent and identical to the data on tha master.
so start another
Am 25.01.2011 16:56, schrieb Robinson, Eric:
You say that like it doesn't mean a huge amount of additional work,
expense, and complexity. We currently have 240+ master MySQL instances
and are adding them at a rate of several per week.
240 mysql-servers?
why there is no consolidation?
240 mysql-servers?
why there is no consolidation?
I said 240+ mysql *instances*, not servers. It's actually just 3
physical servers (not counting standby cluster nodes).
just need a way to make the same thing work with InnoDB.
this is simply impossible
That is very unfortunate.
Am 25.01.2011 18:38, schrieb Robinson, Eric:
240 mysql-servers?
why there is no consolidation?
I said 240+ mysql *instances*, not servers. It's actually just 3
physical servers (not counting standby cluster nodes).
240 mysql-instances on 3 physical hosts?
what crazy setup is this please?
240 mysql-instances on 3 physical hosts?
what crazy setup is this please?
Processors average 90% idle, peaks are low, iowait is low, the system is
not swapping, response time is good, and our users are happy all around
the country. What is crazy about that?
The whole world can work with
On 1/25/2011 10:45, Robinson, Eric wrote:
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 often it is not
actually the case.
... sounds interesting; have you got any document explaining
this phenomenon? AFAIK, the things
On 1/25/2011 09:00, Robinson, Eric wrote:
...
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
way to put InnoDB into a state where all changes have been flushed to
disk and it is safe to rsync the
On 1/25/2011 10:45, Robinson, Eric wrote:
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 often
it is not
actually the case.
... sounds interesting; have you got any document explaining this
phenomenon?
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 way to put InnoDB into a state where all changes have
been flushed
to disk and it is safe to rsync the directory? Is stopping
the service
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 backups.
Now we're talkin. I'll check it out.
I read that section but it is not
I suspect the same trick might work with InnoDB (with pretty much the same
caveats), but you'd be best off setting innodb-file-per-table - I'm sure
you've already seen that the large datafiles are a hindrance to smooth
rsyncing :-)
Make sure to test extensively, though.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at
reply inline
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Angela liu yyll2...@yahoo.com wrote:
Folks :
two questions:
1. can Innodb create per database table space , not per table table space?
No. The only available options are creating a global tablespace which
can be many files or a file per table.
...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Eric Bergen eric.ber...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Innodb table space questions
To: Angela liu yyll2...@yahoo.com
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Date: Monday, January 17, 2011, 10:09 PM
reply inline
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Angela liu yyll2...@yahoo.com wrote:
Folks
Once you get innodb corruption like this, you generally have to try to dump all
your data, shutdown mysql, wipe out all innodb tables and files, then restart
mysql reimport:
It gives the link http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/forcing-recovery.html,
to help explain how to start innodb and
Hey Willy - Install the new binaries and start mysql with new binary as
basedir and see whether innodb has enabled or not. Check the error log why
the innodb is getting disabled, make a copy of it here too.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Willy Mularto sangpr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi List,
Last
I got the solution. I stop the ib* files in MySQL datadir and start the server.
Now everything is back to normal. Thanks.
sangprabv
sangpr...@gmail.com
http://www.petitiononline.com/froyo/
On Oct 12, 2010, at 11:00 PM, Suresh Kuna wrote:
Hey Willy - Install the new binaries and start
I'm interested in InnoDB backups. Does anyone use PHPMyAdmin ? I've a
MySQL server on a shared hosting server.
Cheers
Neil
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:21 AM, short.cut...@yahoo.com.cn wrote:
Hello,
Is there any good document for backup of InnoDB?
includes the increment backup and full
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 4:21 AM, short.cut...@yahoo.com.cn wrote:
Hello,
Is there any good document for backup of InnoDB?
includes the increment backup and full backup.
There is an overview of backups here
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/backup-methods.html
XtraBackup supports
Willy Mularto wrote:
Hi,
I got this result on InnoDB Buffer Pool Status:
Free pages1
Dirty pages 2,040
Pages containing data 31,359
Pages to be flushed 457,083,205
Busy pages1,408
Read requests 31,348,288,497
Write requests7,913,407,934
Read misses
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Willy Mularto sangpr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I got this result on InnoDB Buffer Pool Status:
Free pages 1
Dirty pages 2,040
Pages containing data 31,359
Pages to be flushed 457,083,205
Busy pages 1,408
Read requests 31,348,288,497
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Johnny Withers joh...@pixelated.net wrote:
Now when i run the same show table status command, the comment field says:
InnoDB free: 6144 kB
Is that telling me that I only have 6MB of storage left even though I
increased the table space by 8GB?
I seem to
About the above - it is saying 6144 KB so it is 6.1 GB.
Are you sure? I would think 6144KB = 6.144 MB, or 6144 * 1000 = 6,144,000
bytes.
I think since InnoDB, by default, extends the table space by 8MB increments,
this is reporting the free space in this increment. How can I tell total
Hi Johnny,
Sorry about that - i just overlooked and the simple way to calculate the
sizes is to query the information_schema table called tables for data and
index sizes.
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Johnny Withers joh...@pixelated.net wrote:
About the above - it is saying 6144 KB so it
Hey john,
Yes you can add it but safe to keep auto-extend at the end and monitor the
disk space as well.
Now when i run the same show table status command, the comment field says:
InnoDB free: 6144 kB
Is that telling me that I only have 6MB of storage left even though I
increased the table
optimize / analyze table in each of the hosts is not a good option for me ,
this is an in-production set-up with minimal number of boxes in rotation .
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM, arijit bhattacharyya
new2mys...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi , i am running into trouble due to wrong index chosen by
You you send us explain of that query.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:31 PM, arijit bhattacharyya
new2mys...@gmail.comwrote:
optimize / analyze table in each of the hosts is not a good option for me ,
this is an in-production set-up with minimal number of boxes in rotation .
On Sun, Jul 11,
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Leonardo Leonardo new2mys...@gmail.comwrote:
Here is the structure of the Table T1 ( ENGINE=InnoDB ) -
`c1` varchar(128) NOT NULL default '',
`c2` int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
`c3` varchar(32) NOT NULL default '',
`c4` blob,
`c5` double default
In the last episode (Jul 11), Leonardo Leonardo said:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Leonardo Leonardo
new2mys...@gmail.comwrote:
Here is the structure of the Table T1 ( ENGINE=InnoDB ) -
`c1` varchar(128) NOT NULL default '',
`c2` int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
`c3`
Machiel,
I'm going to disagree strongly with the previous advice you got. You
should NOT configure the buffer pool to be larger than the amount of
RAM you have. If part of the buffer pool is swapped out, then
swapping it back in is MUCH worse than re-fetching the page. InnoDB
doesn't know the
1 - 100 of 1574 matches
Mail list logo
