It was actually at the end of my list. But its still there. Perhaps I need to move it up. Thanks for the link! I'll spin up another replica and downgrade it. Is there any notes out there about experience. Most of what i wanted out of 10.5 was galera improvements and not a lot of application level perks. Any successes or failures that you've seen. I can do it in a vacuum, and i will...but just in case.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:53 AM Gordan Bobic <gordan.bo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 10.5.x still seem to be problematic. Is reverting an option for you? > > > https://www.percona.com/blog/2020/08/14/evaluating-performance-improvements-in-mariadb-10-5-5/ > > > > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020, 01:38 Jeff Dyke, <jeff.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thought it was worth adding, I only added the relevant details, i hope, >> as i've been dealing with scaling MariaDB and MySQL, with innodb, for a >> long time in both high data throughput and millions of sessions a day, so >> i've taken the normal steps to mitigate/investigate this on the server, btw >> is a EC2 C5XLarge, with NVMe SSDs. I'm not calling myself an expert, just >> looking for the non low hanging fruit. >> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 7:24 PM Jeff Dyke <jeff.d...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately, I can't easily give you a repro case, or show you the >>> queries. I upgraded a replica/DW server from 10.4.latest to 10.5.5. I did >>> this on Friday night. We're not a high volume site (by design) so nothing >>> would really pop up over the weekend. We use google data studio to present >>> reports of aggregated data after the daily events have run. Any given >>> report page will generate from 5-25 connections from datastudio, lots of >>> joins, group bys etc. All of the daily events and reporting and ad-hoc >>> querying by our data analyst was working fine on 10.4, but on 10.5.5, >>> started generating "Out of sort memory, consider increasing server sort >>> buffer size" errors. >>> >>> That's the background, there were no query changes, no significant >>> increase in data. I changed sort_buffer_size and made a couple other >>> optimizations that fit our environment and table types. And i'll have more >>> information in the next few days. >>> >>> All that, leads me to a simple question, that I have not been able to >>> find an answer to or missed something in the changelogs that would indicate >>> this behaviour would have changed. Has anyone seen anything similar. Or >>> does this ring a bell to a change I need to tune other than increasing >>> sort_buffer_size. The only thing that changed was an upgrade. >>> >>> Thanks for reading and giving it a thought. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss >> Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
