On 8 Sep 2008, at 18:33, Rick James wrote:
> * Slave hardware should be at least as powerful as master.
I find this really isn't a problem. I run a slave with much less CPU
and disk, and it has no trouble keeping up because it's not having to
do all the other things that the master does. It does lag when I post
big transactions, but that's mainly due to a lack of speed on the
master, not the slave.
> * When there are long-running queries Seconds_Behind_Master lies,
> but you say it is consistently > 300 sec?
It certainly shouldn't be consistently behind whatever you do. The
only way I can think of that happening is if you often run
transactions that take about 10 minutes to run, in which case you will
often be in that state, as transactions do not get replicated until
they commit (so the slaves never have to do rollbacks).
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/
