Re: [Maria-discuss] fsync necessary for synchronous page flush?

2015-05-08 Thread Xiaofei Du
Justin, I think the fsync I was concerning and the torn page problem are two different things. But now I have a question about double write buffer. If we can detect a torn page by checking the top and bottom of a page, why would we still need double write buffer? If the page is consistent, then we

Re: [Maria-discuss] fsync necessary for synchronous page flush?

2015-05-08 Thread Justin Swanhart
Hi, The log does not have whole pages. Pages must not be torn for the recovery process to work. A fsync is required when a page is written to disk. During recovery all changes since the last checkpoint are replayed, then transactions that do not have a commit marker are rolled back. This is cal

Re: [Maria-discuss] fsync necessary for synchronous page flush?

2015-05-08 Thread Xiaofei Du
Justin, I was thinking of if fsync is needed each time after a write. The operations are already in the log. So recovery can always be done from the log. The difference is that during recovery, we need to go back further in the log and it will take longer. But in that way, I guess it would be hard

Re: [Maria-discuss] fsync necessary for synchronous page flush?

2015-05-08 Thread Justin Swanhart
Hi, InnoDB recovery can not handle torn pages. An fsync is required to ensure that the page is fully written to disk. This is also why the doublewrite buffer is used. Before pages are written down to disk, they are first written sequentially into the doublewrite buffer. This buffer is synced,

Re: [Maria-discuss] fsync necessary for synchronous page flush?

2015-05-08 Thread Xiaofei Du
Laurynas, This is exactly what I was looking for. I went through these functions before. I disabled double write buffer, so I didn't pay attention to code under buf_dblwr... The reason I asked this question is because I didn't know how the recovery process works, so I was wondering if it's necessa

Re: [Maria-discuss] MariaDB 10.0.18 now available

2015-05-08 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 08.05.2015 um 12:06 schrieb Sergei Golubchik: Hi, Reindl! On May 07, Reindl Harald wrote: No, it affects the server, not mysql_upgrade. But it's a new statement, that mysql_upgrade is using, no existing query can possibly trigger that bug well, in other words anybody could crash the s

Re: [Maria-discuss] MariaDB 10.0.18 now available

2015-05-08 Thread Sergei Golubchik
Hi, Reindl! On May 07, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > No, it affects the server, not mysql_upgrade. But it's a new > > statement, that mysql_upgrade is using, no existing query can > > possibly trigger that bug > > well, in other words anybody could crash the server by write a > specific query and

Re: [Maria-discuss] innodb_file_per_table default setting in the online documentation

2015-05-08 Thread Elena Stepanova
Hi Ian, Pantelis, What MySQL docs say is true, however confusing. The value was switched ON in early versions of MySQL 5.5; caused some problems; was switched back to OFF in 5.5.7; stayed OFF in all further 5.5 releases and early releases of 5.6; and was switched ON from 5.6.6. For MariaDB it

Re: [Maria-discuss] innodb_file_per_table default setting in the online documentation

2015-05-08 Thread Ian Gilfillan
Although the first MariaDB 5.5 release was 5.5.20... Anyway, fixed in the docs now, thanks for the report. On 08/05/2015 09:50, Ian Gilfillan wrote: You're right that ON and OFF are switched around. I'll double check the version that this changed - the 5.5 version of the MySQL docs at http:

Re: [Maria-discuss] innodb_file_per_table default setting in the online documentation

2015-05-08 Thread Ian Gilfillan
Thanks Pantelis You're right that ON and OFF are switched around. I'll double check the version that this changed - the 5.5 version of the MySQL docs at http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/innodb-parameters.html#sysvar_innodb_file_per_table also say that this was changed in 5.5.7 (so it was