List:Replication« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Augusto Bott Date:April 22 2008 12:42am
Subject:Re: innodb replication
View as plain text  
Hi Mark!

That is true - the InnoDB file threads can possibly keep working in
the background.
However, the global read lock /should/ prevent any transactions from
committing and modifying datafiles with new data while the lock is
held (at least, according to the docs).

-- 
Augusto Bott


On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Mark Callaghan <mcallaghan@stripped> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Augusto Bott <augusto@stripped> wrote:
> > Hi Rick, Eric, Marcus!
> >
> > I must correct some of the things that have been said on this thread.
> > I'm not commenting on rumors, just the facts from the documentation
> > (and a few years of experience with MySQL) :-)
> >
> > If you're running your MySQL server with
> > innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=1 (that's the default), issuing FLUSH
> > TABLES WITH READ LOCK will indeed prevent modification to the
> > datafiles while the global read lock is held since all committed
> > transactions (so far) will be for sure on disk. The global read lock
> > stays in place until UNLOCK TABLES is issued or until that connection
> > is closed/timed out. This makes it safe to copy the datafiles for a
> > backup - the result is indeed a consistent backup.
>
> FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK should allow for a snapshot (LVM, ZFS) to be
> used to copy all files -- as long as they are on the same filesystem. But I
> do not think it is safe to copy InnoDB files without a snapshot as the
> background IO threads (purge, insert buffer, page writer) can do IO during
> FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK. I have not seen any code that makes the InnoDB
> background IO threads wait when there is a global read lock.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This operation can be called a 'warm backup'. A hot backup is what
> > "InnoDB Hot Backup" does: it does not lock anything while it's running
> > and transactions can start and commit while it's running (the tool
> > requires a brief global read lock at the beginning, when the backup is
> > starting) and takes a full consistent backup (you must license it to
> > use it). A cold backup would be shutting down MySQL, copying the
> > datafiles and firing it up again (also a safe move).
> >
> > The "caveat" when you make a warm backup is that the datafiles will be
> > marked 'dirty' and on the next startup, the logs will be replayed to
> > bring the database to a consistent point, since it "wasn't closed
> > properly" (to the very same point when you issued the FLUSH TABLES
> > WITH READ LOCK statement).
> >
> > --
> > Augusto Bott
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Eric Bergen <ebergen@stripped>
> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >  The flush tables with read lock issue has to do with copying the files
> > >  off the disk, not with using mysqldump's sql. The issue is that flush
> > >  tables with read lock is enough to prevent clients from modifying
> > >  innodb but it doesn't make innodb "hold still" . It still has
> > >  background threads modifying the data files. If you did a flush tables
> > >  with read lock; then copied the data files they will almost certainly
> > >  be corrupted because different parts of the files are copied at
> > >  different times.
> > >
> > >  If you use mysqldump --master-data it will turn on --lock-all-tables
> > >  automatically giving you a consistent snapshot across all storage
> > >  engines. The downside of this is that mysqldump has to hold a read
> > >  lock the entire time it's dumping data. If you're only using innodb
> > >  you can specify --master-data --single-transaction mysqldump will
> > >  issue a flush tables with read lock long enough to copy the master
> > >  data and start a transaction. With a transaction started innodb will
> > >  only return rows that were committed before the transaction was
> > >  started. Other transactions can proceed and innodb won't see the rows.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Rick James <rjames@stripped>
> wrote:
> > >  > Rumor has it that InnoDB used to still have some things in RAM after
> the  "FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK", thereby disallowing it as a safe way to
> dump InnoDB tables.  Another rumor has it that that has been fixed.  [Sorry
> for lack of details; hope someone will respond with details.]
> > >  >
> > >  >  I prefer to stop mysql, copy the necessary directories, then
> restart
> mysql.  An improvement on that is to use Snapshots (eg LVM on Linux).  They
> make that extremely fast, hence very practical.  (The copy can be done from
> the snapshot _after_ restarting mysql.)
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >  > -----Original Message-----
> > >  >  > From: Marcus Bointon [mailto:marcus@stripped]
> > >  >  > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 2:42 AM
> > >  >  > To: replication@stripped
> > >  >  > Subject: Re: innodb replication
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  > On 18 Apr 2008, at 10:27, Ed W wrote:
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  > >> I´m going to set up a innodb database
> replication, and I
> > >  >  > have some
> > >  >  > >> doubts
> > >  >  > >> about the backing up the master database step.
> > >  >  > >>
> > >  >  > >> Normally, I do a "FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK", backup
> the data
> > >  >  > >> files (or
> > >  >  > >> use mysqldump), get the current log coordinates with
> "SHOW
> MASTER
> > >  >  > >> STATUS"
> > >  >  > >> and unlock the tables. Using exactly the same steps
> work for
> innodb
> > >  >  > >> databases?
> > >  >  > >>
> > >  >  > >> According to some texts, it seems not, but I
> haven´t found
> > >  >  > a clear
> > >  >  > >> cookbook.
> > >  >  > >>
> > >  >  > >>
> > >  >  > >> Just doing a "mysqldump --master-data
> --single-transaction" is
> > >  >  > >> enough to
> > >  >  > >> replace the above steps?
> > >  >  > >>
> > >  >  > >>
> > >  >  > >
> > >  >  > > How would you put these two things together in the case
> of
> > >  >  > a server
> > >  >  > > using mixed database table types for a clean backup that
> > >  >  > can be used
> > >  >  > > to restart synchronisation?
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  > You can't. Only InnoDB supports single-transaction, so though
> > >  >  > it would
> > >  >  > still generate a dump file for other table types, you'd have
> no
> > >  >  > assurance that they are clean because writes could be
> > >  >  > happening as you
> > >  >  > do it. This is one of the advantages of using innodb.
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  > You can of course do separate dumps for other DBs, and because
> that
> > >  >  > wouldn't need to include the innodb tables, it would at least
> reduce
> > >  >  > the time that your tables are locked.
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  > You could also look at maatkit's parallel dump/load scripts.
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  > Marcus
> > >  >  > --
> > >  >  > Marcus Bointon
> > >  >  > Synchromedia Limited: Creators of
> http://www.smartmessages.net/
> > >  >  > UK resellers of info@hand CRM solutions
> > >  >  > marcus@stripped | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  > --
> > >  >  > MySQL Replication Mailing List
> > >  >  > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/replication
> > >  >  > To unsubscribe:
> > >  >  > http://lists.mysql.com/replication?unsub=1
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > >
> > >  >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >  --
> > >  >  MySQL Replication Mailing List
> > >  >  For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/replication
> > >  >  To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/replication?unsub=1
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  --
> > >  Eric Bergen
> > >  eric.bergen@stripped
> > >  http://www.provenscaling.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  --
> > >  MySQL Replication Mailing List
> > >  For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/replication
> > >  To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/replication?unsub=1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > MySQL Replication Mailing List
> > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/replication
> > To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/replication?unsub=1
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Callaghan
> mcallaghan@stripped
Thread
innodb replicationEdson Noboru Yamada23 Mar
  • Re: innodb replicationMarcus Bointon24 Mar
  • Re: innodb replicationEd W18 Apr
    • Re: innodb replicationMarcus Bointon18 Apr
      • Re: innodb replicationEd W18 Apr
        • Re: innodb replicationMarcus Bointon18 Apr
      • RE: innodb replicationRick James19 Apr
        • Re: innodb replicationEric Bergen20 Apr
          • Re: innodb replicationAugusto Bott22 Apr
            • Re: innodb replicationMark Callaghan22 Apr
              • Re: innodb replicationAugusto Bott22 Apr
                • Re: innodb replicationEric Bergen22 Apr
              • Re: innodb replicationAugusto Bott23 Apr
                • Re: innodb replicationEric Bergen23 Apr
                  • RE: innodb replicationRick James23 Apr
                    • Re: innodb replicationMarcus Bointon23 Apr
                    • Re: innodb replicationJeremy Cole23 Apr
                      • RE: innodb replicationRick James23 Apr
                        • Re: innodb replicationJeremy Cole23 Apr
                          • RE: innodb replicationRick James23 Apr
                            • Re: innodb replicationMarcus Bointon23 Apr
                              • Re: innodb replicationEric Bergen24 Apr
                                • Re: innodb replicationMoon's Father21 May