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. But I
haven't been able to find any definite documentation that
advises whether you can/should run MySQL on Linux without
the default(on Linux) --skip-locking, and what the issues
(pros/cons) are surrounding that.
The basic problem is MySQL seems to be running well on Redhat
6.1 Linux *with* the default --skip-locking, except for this
update log confusion problem that I see occassionally. And now
that I've put the sleep in after the mysqladmin flush-logs, I
can't get the confusion to happen any more - maybe I've solved
the problem???
Here's my basic backup strategy
* mysqldump once a week
* mysqladmin flush-logs once an hour(?), and save the inactive
(older) logs to a backup directory for that week
* I'd like to work in a "myisamchk" once a day(?), but the
documentation says not to do this while running
--skip-locking unless you bring the server down
* Again, I thought that --enable-locking might
solve this problem, and allow me to run myisamchk
when the server is up - would it?
Would you do this differently? Or does this seem like a
reasonable strategy?
Please reply - it's great to finally(after posting this 3
times, and reading all the related documentation I could
find) get a response.
Thank you very much!
--
Hardy Merrill
Mission Critical Linux, Inc.
http://www.missioncriticallinux.com
>
> 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's accessing the DB, is a cron job. Can you time
> it so that your flush-logs occur between this daemon process?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hardy Merrill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Rolf Hopkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 23:15
> Subject: Re: --skip-locking on Redhat 6.1 Linux
>
>
> > 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_update_log backup_dir
> >
> > and using this scheme I've seen a few different types of
> > update log confusion, but here was one:
> >
> > current update log name: update_log.100
> >
> > when I ran mysqladmin flush-logs while updates were occurring,
> > the result was that the update log that was moved to backup_dir
> > had name "update_log.100", and the new update log that got
> > created in the MySQL data directory had exactly the same
> > name(update_log.100).
> >
> > I have a daemon writing INSERT's and UPDATE's very regularly
> > to the MySQL database, so I don't want to take the MySQL
> > server down if I can help it, but I would like to run
> > flush-logs on a regular basis so I can have checkpoints
> > of database updates to save off - is there a way for
> > me to lock the tables(or the whole database) in the
> > script *before* doing the mysqladmin flush-logs, to
> > prevent update log confusion? Do you know of a way to solve
> > this update log confusion?
> >
> > I did notice that when I inserted a sleep 1(or 2) between
> > the mysqladmin flush-logs and the "mv" that I haven't been
> > able to "make" the update-logs get confused, but I'm not
> > very confident that this is "the" right solution. Please
> > help.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Hardy Merrill
> > Mission Critical Linux, Inc.
> > http://www.missioncriticallinux.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rolf Hopkins [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > > 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 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/manual.php (the manual)
> > > > http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
> > > >
> > > > To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Before posting, please check:
> > http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
> > http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
> >
> > To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
