Mon,
If I understood well, skip-locking isn't for you. IMHO, if you have a
unique process (mysqld) that manages your tables and statements are
causing deadlock, maybe you should try InnoDB. Try simulate a parallel
environment changing the storage engine and tell us. (Take a look in
the mod
on, September 13, 2010 1:07:38 AM
> Subject: Re: skip locking
>
> Received.
>
>
>
> On Sunday, September 12, 2010 09:32:12 am monloi perez wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Sorry if I posted on the wrong list.
>>
>> I've had this issue with my previous server
Any idea on this?
-Mon
From: Michael Satterwhite
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Mon, September 13, 2010 1:07:38 AM
Subject: Re: skip locking
Received.
On Sunday, September 12, 2010 09:32:12 am monloi perez wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Sorry if I post
Received.
On Sunday, September 12, 2010 09:32:12 am monloi perez wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Sorry if I posted on the wrong list.
>
> I've had this issue with my previous server already, seems like
> skip-locking configuration does not seem to work on myisam tables.
>
>
Hi All,
Sorry if I posted on the wrong list.
I've had this issue with my previous server already, seems like skip-locking
configuration does not seem to work on myisam tables.
Also what is the difference between myisam and innodb tables. The reason I
wanted to know is that I think
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:30:51AM -0500, Matt W wrote:
>
> > Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo!
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/
> >
> > MySQL 4.0.15-Yahoo-SMP: up 1 days, processed 47,861,708 queries (374/sec. avg)
>
> Off topic: Been wonderi
Hi!
On Sep 09, Daniel Kasak wrote:
> Paul DuBois wrote:
>
> >At 12:00 +1000 9/9/03, Daniel Kasak wrote:
> >
> >>It's been suggested that I add 'enable-locking' to the [mysqld]
> >>section of my.cnf.
> >
> >
> >You might want to reconsider. It's disabled by default on all systems
> >as of MySQL
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Zawodny"
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: --skip-locking and 'enable locking' in my.cnf
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:42:33PM -0500, Paul DuBois wrote:
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://ww
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:42:33PM -0500, Paul DuBois wrote:
>
> See:
>
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/System.html
>
> Note the part about Linux.
Paul, you might update that page. It's extoling the virtues of the
2.2 kernel and SMP. But 2.4 is clearly superior in that department.
And the 2GB f
sufficient.
Why is locking disabled and not recommended? I had a look on the web
site, and saw a few pages on locking, but didn't find any mention of
locking being disabled.
See:
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/System.html
Note the part about Linux.
I found the source of the '--skip-lo
reen.
Why is locking disabled and not recommended? I had a look on the web
site, and saw a few pages on locking, but didn't find any mention of
locking being disabled.
I found the source of the '--skip-locking' switch - it was in the
mysqld_safe scripts. Thanks for that :)
I haven&
At 12:00 +1000 9/9/03, Daniel Kasak wrote:
Hi all.
I'm using MySQL-4.0.14, compiled by Gentoo's ebuild script.
Somewhere along the line, I've picked up a '--skip-locking' flag
that I can't find the source of.
It's not in the /etc/init.d/mysql script. It'
Hi all.
I'm using MySQL-4.0.14, compiled by Gentoo's ebuild script.
Somewhere along the line, I've picked up a '--skip-locking' flag that I
can't find the source of.
It's not in the /etc/init.d/mysql script. It's not in my my.cnf. Gentoo
has a start-sto
louie,
Friday, July 12, 2002, 12:06:07 PM, you wrote:
lm> http://www.mysql.com/doc/C/r/Crash_recovery.html
lm> Is this very reliable? Coz im planning to remove the --skip-locking options.
On some OS, like Linux, Windows, Solaris skip-locking is ON by
default.
Why do you want remove
http://www.mysql.com/doc/C/r/Crash_recovery.html
Is this very reliable? Coz im planning to remove the --skip-locking options.
Thanks
-
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http
http://www.mysql.com/doc/C/r/Crash_recovery.html
Is this very reliable? Coz im planning to remove the --skip-locking options.
Thanks
-
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http
Jan,
Thursday, July 11, 2002, 1:25:11 PM, you wrote:
JK> I am running MySQL 3.23.49 on Red Hat Linux 7.3 (installed from rpm included
JK> in RH distribution). I am using ext3 file system. In my my.cfg is
JK> "skip-locking".
JK> The system is Intel i810, Intel Celeron 433
Hi All,
I am running MySQL 3.23.49 on Red Hat Linux 7.3 (installed from rpm included
in RH distribution). I am using ext3 file system. In my my.cfg is
"skip-locking".
The system is Intel i810, Intel Celeron 433 MHz, 64 MB RAM. It is used only
as a database server which is accessable
I am doing some automated mysql -u user -ppasswd
database < insertfile.sql
in a loop and have some skip locking presumably because
there are a number of jobs running to do this
(with different files, which however use the same
tables). Should I rather do line by line inserts for
sp
--skip-locking is on by default? I gotta check that but, yes, if I were you
I would try without the skip locking option. You would then also be able to
do a myisamchk without bringing down the server.
- Original Message -
From: "Hardy Merrill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T
Rolf Hopkins [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Firstly, I'm curious as to why you need --skip-locking in the first place.
I'm not sure that I do - I just thought that if I instead
used --enable-locking that this problem of update logs
getting confused with flush-logs might(?) go away.
Firstly, I'm curious as to why you need --skip-locking in the first place.
Now that I know what you are trying to achieve, I can honestly say I'm not
sure. I'd have to read the manual for more detail on how flush-logs
interact with table locking etc.
I presume your daemon, that&
Rolf, I'm invoking safe_mysqld with --skip-locking and
--log-update=update_log, among other options. If I run
mysqladmin flush-logs while database updates are occurring,
the update logs sometimes get confused - the scheme I have
is basically
mysqladmin flush-logs
mv name_of_old_updat
can: yes
should: That's up to you but personally I wouldn't
- Original Message -
From: "Hardy Merrill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 3:31
Subject: --skip-locking on Redhat 6.1 Linux
> Can/should MySQL
Can/should MySQL be started *without* --skip-locking on Redhat
6.1 Linux?
TIA.
--
Hardy Merrill
Mission Critical Linux, Inc.
http://www.missioncriticallinux.com
-
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com
I'm fairly new to MySQL, and I've read some documentation that
says that "skip-locking" is the default on Linux. I'm trying
to set up a table maintenance/backup strategy, and I'd like
to use "myisamchk" and "mysqldump".
1. Can I run myisamchk
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:13:15AM +0100, Marco Bizzarri wrote:
> Hi all...
>
> I would like to have some explanation about skip-locking feature of
> the safe_mysqld. I've already read the manual pages of safe_mysqld.
>
> The questions are as follows:
>
> 1) for
Hi all...
I would like to have some explanation about skip-locking feature of the
safe_mysqld. I've already read the manual pages of safe_mysqld.
The questions are as follows:
1) for a single daemon installation, without any isamcheck occuring
during normal operation, is there any diffe
28 matches
Mail list logo
