Pantek Library
Hosting Provided By
CybrHost
High Speed Hosting

Re: Mysql monitering and performance tool

From: Baron Schwartz <baron(at)xaprb.com>
Date: Mon Jul 30 2007 - 08:48:16 EDT


Mark Leith wrote:
> Baron Schwartz wrote:

>> Mark Leith wrote:
>>> Baron Schwartz wrote:
>>>> I stand corrected.  I don't know why I didn't think of this!
>>>>
>>>> So you guys had to go the route of parsing InnoDB status too, huh?  
>>>> Fun, isn't it!
>>>
>>> Indeed, it is a rather interesting thing to do ;) Made even better 
>>> when it is limited to 64K and truncated with large transactions!
>>
>> Or a big deadlock with tons of tuples.  I have submitted a feature 
>> request to remove the list of locks held, but I don't know how high a 
>> priority it's given.  It's useless for non-developers, though Heikki 
>> told me he uses it every day.  I wouldn't think it'd be hard to define 
>> a compile-time option whether to include all the tuples locked, so 
>> Heikki and Marko could see it but spare the rest of us :)  Of course 
>> seeing just the first part of that output, which shows what kind of 
>> lock was held on which index, is very useful for non-InnoDB-developers 
>> too.

>
> Have you filed a feature request on this? I would agree that the list of
> locks is certainly not of use to the average DBA, so removing this by
> default would be a good idea.

Yes, it's here: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=29126

I actually combined two bug requests in one, now that I think about it. Maybe this wasn't a good idea. Maybe "trim down deadlock info" and "add lock info to normal output" should have been separated.

>> Yep.  But there's always that legacy support you have to keep around!

>
> Exactly! ;)
>
> If 'you' have parsed the output in a sane manner, many tools should be
> unaffected, however, we can not rely on that, and changing innodb status
> could break a lot of scripts already made out there ;) This is why we
> have to be very careful and considered in making these kinds of changes.
> Of course, the burden is also on the InnoDB developers to do this.

I don't see how this change could be made without breaking non-sane scripts, though. This might have to be an incompatible change for those scripts that rely on seeing the list of tuples. For my part, as far as I know innotop's parser should be able to handle it as-is, and shouldn't even care about the order in which the sections are placed in the output. But I'd have to make a test case to prove that. Regardless, support for Google's patches is on the 1.6 roadmap for innotop, so there'll be a chance for me to see -- but not right now, I'm too busy with other things!

Baron

-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: 
http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:    
http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=lists@pantek.com
Received on Mon Jul 30 08:49:22 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 09 2007 - 19:29:38 EDT


Contact Us  Legal Notices  Order Services Online 
Pantek Home  Privacy Policy  IT news  Site Map  Pantek Library