On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 08:30:17AM +0200, Adrian Reyer wrote:
> Speed improved many many times. My incremental backup finished after
> just 10 minutes while it took 2h earlier.
This had been the benefit of using InnoDB over MyISAM. However, at 12GB
RAM and 8900 File entries (12GB file on disk)
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 11:08:44AM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> for table in $(mysql -N --batch -e 'select
> concat(table_schema,'.',table_name) from information_schema.tables where
> engine='MyISAM' and table_schema not in
> ('information_schema','mysql')'); do mysql -N --batch -e "alter table
On 07/06/11 10:41, Adrian Reyer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:09:56AM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> should I use for my tables?" is MyISAM.[1] At this point, wherever
>> possible, EVERYONE should be using InnoDB.
>
> I will, if the current backup ever finishes. For a start on MySQL 5.1
>
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:09:56AM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> should I use for my tables?" is MyISAM.[1] At this point, wherever
> possible, EVERYONE should be using InnoDB.
I will, if the current backup ever finishes. For a start on MySQL 5.1
though (Debian squeeze). I am aware InnoDB has a
On 07/06/11 08:04, Adrian Reyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am using bacula for a bit more than a month now and the database gets
> slower and slower both for selecting stuff and for running backups as
> such.
> I am using a MySQL database, still myisam tables and I am considering
> switching to InnoDB tab
Hi,
I am using bacula for a bit more than a month now and the database gets
slower and slower both for selecting stuff and for running backups as
such.
I am using a MySQL database, still myisam tables and I am considering
switching to InnoDB tables or postgresql.
Amongst normal fileserver data the
