On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 13:14 -0400, George Herson wrote:
> James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 12:15 -0400, George Herson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dear Jim,
> >>
> >>Re: your post at http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/189058, why bother
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 12:15 -0400, George Herson wrote:
> Dear Jim,
>
> Re: your post at http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/189058, why bother
> creating the mysqldump if you already have the snapshot? Why not just
> backup the snapshot?
>
> (I'd have hit reply online but didn't see a Reply button a
quoting Alan Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ..
>> This recipe is intended to minimize the impact on ongoing database
>> operations by inhibiting writes only during a relatively speedy
>> operation (creating a snapshot). The long dump operation can ...
>
>This seems to be a rather long winded way o
This recipe is intended to minimize the impact on ongoing database
operations by inhibiting writes only during a relatively speedy
operation (creating a snapshot). The long dump operation can then be
performed on the (stable) snapshot, without interfering with ongoing use
of the live database.
1.
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 20:01 -0700, Patrick Michael Kane wrote:
> Did you ever get any responses on how to get innodb to a consistent
> on-disk state for LVM snapshotting?
>
> FYI, under LVM2 read/write snapshots are allowed.
>
I never got any replies.
If you look closely into my rambling posti
Am I doing something wrong, or does the innodb engine design preclude
loading a server with a readonly database snapshot?
I'm talking about 4.1.x (or maybe 4.x) and linux lvm snapshots (lvm2)
specifically about MySQL-4.1.12 (mysql-4.1.12-2.FC4.1.x86_64.rpm)
tested on an AMD-64 + FC4 (lin
