From: Zardosht Kasheff Date: January 30 2013 3:51pm Subject: Re: [Maria-developers] what pros/cons of storing binary log in an InnoDB table? List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/internals/38703 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Stewart, thanks for the feedback. That this was simple for Drizzle is encouraging to hear. Is there a proposal somewhere for eliminating the need for fsyncs on a slave? As I understand, MWL#164 still requires the fsync. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Vadim Tkachenko wrote: > Stewart, > > I would pretty much like to see benchmarks numbers, especially > under IO-bound workload before agreeing that it performs well. > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Stewart Smith wrote: >> Kristian Nielsen writes: >>> You will be writing your data *6* times: To the real table, when flushing its >>> buffer pool pages. To the double-write buffer while flushing, and to the redo >>> log before flushing. Then to the binlog table, and before that to the redo log >>> and the doublewrite buffer. I could never reconcile myself with this. >> >> Mind you, it performs really quite well due to the reduced fsync()s and >> (at least in Drizzle code) was rather trivial to implement. Big bang for >> buck :) >> >> -- >> Stewart Smith > > > > -- > Vadim Tkachenko, CTO, Percona > Phone +1-925-400-7377, Skype: vadimtk153 > Schedule meeting: http://meetme.so/VadimTkachenko > > Join us in Santa Clara for the annual Percona Live MySQL Conference & Expo 2013! > http://www.percona.com/live/mysql-conference-2013/ > > Looking for Replication with Data Consistency? > Try Percona XtraDB Cluster!