List:Replication« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Pankaj Joshi Date:April 3 2012 5:03am
Subject:Re: Seconds Behind Master increasing in slave
View as plain text  
please also check if master and slave servers time are in sync , this could
be a reason as well .

Pankaj

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Revathi Rangachari <masrrev@stripped>wrote:

> Hi Rick
>
> Both master and slave have same hardware configuration. The queries are
> not run parallel in master/slave. I agree there is only one thread running
> on the slave for the updates.
>
> Thanks
> Revathi R
>
> --- On Tue, 4/3/12, Rick James <rjames@stripped> wrote:
>
> > From: Rick James <rjames@stripped>
> > Subject: Re: Seconds Behind Master increasing in slave
> > To: replication@stripped
> > Date: Tuesday, April 3, 2012, 3:14 AM
> > * If the Slave is less powerful than
> > the Master (eg no RAID vs RAID),
> > hardware can contribute to the long delays.
> > * If the queries on the Master are done in
> > parallel,...  Replication
> > serializes the queries, thereby taking more elapsed time on
> > the Slave.
> > (Note:  There is only one Update running on the slave,
> > no matter how
> > many are queued up.)
> >
> > On 4/2/12 1:58 PM, Arthur Fuller wrote:
> > > The immediate  suspect is that single update
> > statement. Is it a massive
> > > batch-update? If so, is it possible to break it down
> > into several smaller
> > > updates, run successively?
> > >
> > > Arthur
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:26 PM, David Lerer<DLerer@stripped>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> How long did the one update statement run?
> > >> (A slow update, even if it is a single transaction,
> > can slow down
> > >> replication.
> > >> David.
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Revathi Rangachari [mailto:masrrev@stripped]
> > >> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 3:42 PM
> > >> To: replication@stripped
> > >> Subject: Seconds Behind Master increasing in slave
> > >>
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> We have a master-slave setup.  The slave acts
> > only as a replicate and does
> > >> not cater to any client requests.
> > >>
> > >> Over the last 24 hours there has been more than 4
> > to 6 hours delay in the
> > >> replication.  The CPU, IO, memory usage all
> > seem to be under control.  I
> > >> changed the  SET GLOBAL
> > innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 0 ;
> > >>
> > >> The slave sql and io threads are running.
> > >> show processlist shows only one update statement on
> > a table.
> > >>
> > >> In spite of all this the slave still lags behind in
> > replication by 5 hours.
> > >>
> > >> Any suggestion to improve the replication
> > performance is highly
> > >> appreciated.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Revathi R
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Rick James - MySQL Geek
> >
> >
> > --
> > MySQL Replication Mailing List
> > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/replication
> > To unsubscribe:    http://lists.mysql.com/replication
> >
> >
>
> --
> MySQL Replication Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/replication
> To unsubscribe:    http://lists.mysql.com/replication
>
>

Thread
adding another slavenhadie ramos1 Apr
  • Re: adding another slavea.smith1 Apr
  • Re: adding another slaveNeil Armitage1 Apr
    • Re: adding another slavenhadie ramos1 Apr
      • Seconds Behind Master increasing in slaveRevathi Rangachari2 Apr
        • RE: Seconds Behind Master increasing in slaveDavid Lerer2 Apr
          • Re: Seconds Behind Master increasing in slaveArthur Fuller2 Apr
            • Re: Seconds Behind Master increasing in slaveRick James2 Apr
              • Re: Seconds Behind Master increasing in slaveRevathi Rangachari2 Apr
                • Re: Seconds Behind Master increasing in slavePankaj Joshi3 Apr
            • Re: Seconds Behind Master increasing in slaveRevathi Rangachari2 Apr
              • Re: Seconds Behind Master increasing in slavenehal dattani2 Apr
                • Re: Seconds Behind Master increasing in slaveRevathi Rangachari2 Apr
          • RE: Seconds Behind Master increasing in slaveRevathi Rangachari2 Apr