Even with brand new log files, I got the messages again:
030923 13:37:10 InnoDB: Error: page 2621 log sequence number 0 758479545
InnoDB: is in the future! Current system log sequence number 0 330424282.
InnoDB: Your database may be corrupt.
030923 13:37:10 InnoDB: Error: page 2622 log sequence
I haven't touched the log or the data files before or after I upgraded
mysqld...
Well, now I recreated the log files and so far that error didn't show up
again. let's pray :)
thank you very much
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Harald,
030923 15:10:14 InnoDB: Error: page 53 log sequence number 6 19041
Does anybody know what this error is all about? and how do to get rid of
it... It started when I upgraded 4.0.13 to 4.0.15
---
030922 5:17:30 InnoDB: Error: page 1 log sequence number 0 768348475
InnoDB: is in the future! Current system log sequence number 0 330400180.
InnoDB: Your data
I already use linuxthreads for freebsd...
Do you think mysql would run well with the new threads for freebsd 5.XX?
Did anybody try it?
thanks
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 10:51:49AM -0300, Gustavo A. Baratto wrote:
no problem for me... 1000+ DBs on RH linux (ext3 fs), then
from the manual:
-
7.5.12.3 Defragmenting a Table
If there are random insertions or deletions in the indexes of a table,
the indexes may become fragmented. By fragmentation we mean that the
physical ordering of the index pages on the disk is not close to the
alphabetical ordering of the
from the manual:
-
7.5.12.3 Defragmenting a Table
If there are random insertions or deletions in the indexes of a table,
the indexes may become fragmented. By fragmentation we mean that the
physical ordering of the index pages on the disk is not close to the
alphabetical ordering of the
no problem for me... 1000+ DBs on RH linux (ext3 fs), then moved it to
freebsd 5.1 (almost 1500). Linux is probably faster because of the
kernel based thread, but I like BSD.
You definetely have to tune your my.cnf... use thread and query cache,
increase the key buffer, optimize tables very oft
Hello,
I started getting this error since I upgraded from mysql 4.0.13 to 4.0.15:
030918 7:17:13 InnoDB: Error: page 12412 log sequence number 0 670697749
InnoDB: is in the future! Current system log sequence number 0 186563990.
InnoDB: Your database may be corrupt.
any idea how to get rid of t
I want to remove the old 2.50 myodbc driver. I installed a new version
of myodbc, and the old driver is still being diplayed in the list...
I know this is not really a mysql problem, but I'm not much of a windows
user and google didn't return good results this time... maybe someone
here could gi
I got disappointing results compared with the ones posted here:with a
dual xeon 2Ghz, 2GB ram, freebsd 5.1, mysql
mysql> SELECT BENCHMARK(100,ENCODE("hello","goodbye"));
+--+
| BENCHMARK(100,ENCODE("hello","goodbye")) |
+---
- Original Message -
From: "Paul DuBois" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gustavo A. Baratto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: stopping innodb engine
> At 21:47 + 7/9/03, Gustavo A. Baratto wr
Greetings,
What happens if I use the command below when innodb engine is running?
set global have_innodb=0;
I want to stop innodb engine without stopping the whole server for
backup (most tables are myisam).
Any ideas on how to do that?
Thank all
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list arc
user, 1.8% nice, 1.2% system, 0.2% interrupt, 96.9%
idle
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:41:00PM +0000, Gustavo A. Baratto wrote:
the load average in my freebsd 5.0 (latest releng) compiled statically
with linuxthreads decreased 80% after I tunned these variables:
What
the load average in my freebsd 5.0 (latest releng) compiled statically
with linuxthreads decreased 80% after I tunned these variables:
set-variable = key_buffer_size=100MB
set-variable = read_buffer_size=5M
set-variable = table_cache=500
set-variable = max_delayed_threads=0
set-variable = max_use
Greetings,
we running mysql 4.0.13 compiled statically with linuxthreads on
freebsd 5.0 (SMP).
The problem is that a few connections are not dying after the
wait_timeout and interactive_timeout expired.
The only pattern we can see here is that mysql clients like
jakarta-tomcat (jdbc), and wi
times :)
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Zawodny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gustavo A. Baratto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: threads not being killed
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 1
You can use --skip-name-resolve when starting mysqld, but this is not a real
solution.
Even doing that,'I'm still having some odd problems I never had before, like
table corruption (I'm on 4.0.8 though)
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick de Kievit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECT
This old bug reappeared after the upgrading mysql from version 3.23.54a
(rpm provided by mysql.com) to version 4.0.8-gamma (binary provided by
mysql.com as well).
Using redhat 7.1 glibc 2.2.4-31 (which is supposed to fix this problem)
This server has glibc 2.2.4-31 installed for quite a while, a
Hi Mike.
Check if you data directory is in: /usr/local/mysql/var as specified in your
startup script, or in: /var/lib/mysql
On redhat using the binary distribution, the data dir is in /var/lib/mysql
--
On December 19, 2001 06:19 pm, Mike Blain wrote:
> I keep trying
Hi,
I've changed the length of the field 'user' in the table 'user' in the mysql
DB, to varchar(128), because we need longer names to identify our users
based on their domain names. Something like: each user is identified by a
valid domain name. The same thing we are doing with the DB field.
Greetings,
We modified our db, host, and user tables (in mysql db) in order to have
bigger db names, users... Just 16 characters is really not enough for us.
Now the problem: Some of our users use myODBC to connect to their databases.
And that driver does not accept db names with more than 16
ith a clustering solution...
Thanks,
Gustavo
On Thu, 2001-12-06 at 23:34, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 07:42:29PM -0800, Gustavo A. Baratto wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > The documentation in http://www.mysql.com/doc/R/e/Replication.html ,
> > is not clear en
I'm not sure,
But I don't think symbolic links are allowed on win2k...
Take a look into this...
Regards,
gustavo
On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 12:04, A. Clausen wrote:
> I have been using replication for several months between to Win2k machines.
> Last week I upgraded to MySQL 3.23.45, an
Hi Guys,
The documentation in http://www.mysql.com/doc/R/e/Replication.html , is
not clear enough regarding using replication for load balancing.
I understand that the load balance can just be done on SELECTS. And the
documentation says that "The extra speed is achieved by sending a part
of the
24 matches
Mail list logo
