Hello, At Thursday 22 March 2012 21:36:01 DaB. wrote: > But, I am wondering whether it was necessary to run these updates on both > replicas of s1 (s1-sql-rr and s1-sql-user) at the same time? This is > really a naive question, as I don't know enough about mysql > administration to even guess at the answer. Perhaps someone more > knowledgeable can enlighten us. (I do observe, however, that WMF seems to > have managed to update all of its database slaves in some kind of > sequential fashion that didn't impact access to enwiki.) > > If, in fact, there is no technical requirement for updating both replicas > at the same time, I would suggest that the next time a situation like > this arises, it would make more sense to do the updates sequentially so > that users (both toolserver users and tool users) are not deprived of > access to this resource for such a long time.
yes, for normal you would be right. There are 2 buts here: First: There is only 1 s1-server (rosemary) at the moment (sql-s1-user and sql-s1-rr points to the same server) because the other server (thyme) is corrupt and we wait for a dump by the foundation for a re-import. Second: I THOUGHT that the schema-change on s1 were already done before; otherwise I would had applied the change on rosemary while the user-databases were still on thyme. If for any reason thyme is faster done as rosemary, I will move the user-database back to thyme to speed up the change on rosemary and give you a writable database. Sincerely, DaB. -- Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 2B255885
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list ([email protected]) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
