mark: Photo of Mark's face, taken in standard office fluorescent. (me)Mark Smith ([staff profile] mark) wrote in [site community profile] dw_maintenance,
@ 2012-04-24 12:28 pm UTC
  • Previous Entry
  • Add to Memories
  • Tell someone about this!
  • Next Entry
Hi all,

Over last night and this morning I've done some database maintenance on our global slave. This should be transparent and cause no problems, but please let me know if you see anything amiss.

For the technically curious, I had to do a dump-and-reload on our MySQL instance so that I could free up space in the InnoDB data file. It had grown to ~240GB back when the machine was also home to the user data, but now that it is just used for global data, it is only about 8GB.

After things are settled for a few days, I will have to perform the same operation on the global master. That will be slightly more exciting, but should cause no downtime either.

(Read 26 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

ziggadon: (pic#2333593)


[personal profile] ziggadon
2012-04-24 07:55 pm UTC (link)
I had to do the exact same thing on one of our servers this week, it's rather irritating that the data file can't be shrunk without dropping the databases. Turning on the file-per-table option seems to make it a little more maintainable, though.

(Reply to this)  (Thread) 


mark: Photo of Mark's face, taken in standard office fluorescent. (me)


[staff profile] mark
2012-04-24 08:13 pm UTC (link)
Yeah.

My original plan was to dump and take down our 5.0 slave, make backups, then upgrade to Percona 5.5 and enable innodb_file_per_table. I was thwarted when it became apparent that our Ubuntu 9.04 machines aren't compatible with the Percona 5.5 packages -- too old.

I didn't want to leave the database down long enough to do a full system reinstall, and frankly don't have the time today, so I brought it back up on the old 5.0 and didn't set the options. (I seem to recall something weird with that option in 5.0, or maybe it just doesn't work? I don't know.)

Anyway, hopefully sometime Soon(TM) I can find time to upgrade to 10.04 ... of course, 12.04 is coming out very soon. I don't know that I want to trust the first release on our databases, though. That's probably unwise.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 


ccommack: (kalashnikitty)


[personal profile] ccommack
2012-04-25 01:39 am UTC (link)
Probably a dumb question, but: is there a particular reason why 11.04 and 11.10 are worse than 10.04? Not been around long enough to have the rock-solid stability DW wants and needs?

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 


mark: Photo of Mark's face, taken in standard office fluorescent. (me)


[staff profile] mark
2012-04-25 01:45 am UTC (link)
Never a dumb question!

We're running 9.04 right now which is about three years old. It's no longer supported, so it puts us in a bind and makes it hard to upgrade and receive security updates, etc. Canonical (the folks behind Ubuntu) have structured things such that the LTS releases (8.04, 10.04, 12.04, etc) are supported for five years -- but the non-LTS releases are only supported for two years.

Ideally, we should be on an LTS version or we should commit to upgrading releases more often than we do.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 


(Read 26 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)