From: Michael Widenius Date: March 14 1999 1:37pm Subject: NFS and MYSQL List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/229 Message-Id: <14059.47884.919106.86672@monty.pp.sci.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>>> "Scott" == Scott Mackie writes: >> From the mail archives, it seems that a Mysql database mounted on a NFS Scott> with one write daemon and multiple read daemons, is deemed stable. We Scott> wish to use this concept with the database residing on a NetApp with Scott> multiple read only machines accessing it and only one doing inserts and Scott> updates. It seems Linux is suspect, but Solaris and IRIX are fine for Scott> this type of set up. What I want to know if anyone has tried this with Scott> BSDI 3 or 4? I don't know about BSDI, so please mail me any results ! Scott> We have had great success with BSDI and Mysql, with tables over a Scott> million lines and 10 indexes never corrupting. However, my knowledge of Scott> NFS is not excessive. I believe there are two parameters 'locked' and Scott> 'statd' that need to be considered for the above plan. Scott> Also, should the daemons on the read-only boxes be set to read only Scott> through Mysql's permission tables or is there a option in the config Scott> file for this? Also what exactly does the option --skip-locking flag do? If you do --skip-locking, MySQL will not lock any tables with fnctl() but only use the internal locking. Without --skip-locking, MySQL will do a fcntl() (global lock/unlock) whenever a MySQL table changes lock state. Scott> Any help is greatly welcomed. Scott> PS. I've subscribed to the newgroup but haven't started receiving Scott> messages so a CC email to my email account along with the new's groups Scott> would be appreciated. Regards, Monty