I have a MySQL server running on CentOS which houses a large (>12GB) DB. I have been advised to move to InnoDB for performance reasons as we are experiencing lockups where the application that relies on the DB becomes unresponsive when the server is busy.
I have been reading around and can see that the ALTER command that changes the table to InnoDB is likely to take a long time and hammer the server in the process. As far as I can see, the only change required is to use the following command:
ALTER TABLE t ENGINE=InnoDB
I have run this on a test server and it seems to complete fine, taking about 26 minutes on the largest of the tables that needs to be converted.
Having never run this on a production system I am interested to know the following:
What changes are recommended to be made to the MySQL config to take advantage of additional performance of InnoDB tables? The server currently has 3GB assigned to InnoDB cache - was thinking of increasing this to 15GB once the additional RAM is installed.
Is there anything else I should do to the server with this change?
I would really recommend using either Percona MySQL or MariaDB. Both have tools that will help you get the most out of InnoDB, as well as some tools to help you diagnose and optimize your database further (for example, Percona's Online Schema Change tool could be used to alter your tables without downtime).
As far as optimization of InnoDB, I think most would agree that innodb_buffer_pool_size is one of the most important parameters to tune (and typically people set it around 70-80% of total available memory, but that's not a magic number). It's not the only important config variable, though, and there's really no magic run_really_fast setting. You should also pay attention to innodb_buffer_pool_instances (and there's a good discussion about this topic on https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-do-you-tune-mysql-for-a-heavy-innodb-workload)
Also, you should definitely check out the tips offered in the MySQL documentation itself (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/optimizing-innodb.html). It's also a good idea to pay attention to your InnoDB hit ratio (Rolado over at DBA Stackexchange has a great answer on this topic, eg, https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/65341/innodb-buffer-pool-hit-rate) and analyze your slow query logs carefully. Towards that later end, I would definitely recommend taking a look at Percona again. Their slow query analyzer is top notch and can really give you a leg up when it comes to optimizing SQL performance.
Related
I have MySQL 5.7.24 running on a Windows VM. It has a few thousand databases (7000). I understand this is not the recommended set up for MySQL but some business requirements have necessitated this multi-tenant db structure and I cannot change that unfortunately.
The server works fine when it is running but the startup time can get pretty long, almost 20-30 mins after a clean shutdown of the MySQL service and 1+ hours after a restart of the Windows VM.
Is there any way to reduce the startup time?
In my configuration, I observed that innodb_file_per_table = ON (which is the default for MySQL 5.7 I believe) and so I think that at startup it is scanning every .ibd file.
Would changing innodb_file_per_table = OFF and then altering each table to get rid of the .ibd files be a viable option. One thing to note is that in general, every database size is pretty small and even with 7000 databases, the total size of the data is about 60gb only. So to my understanding, innodb_file_per_table = ON is more beneficial when there are single tables that can get pretty large which is not the case for my server.
Question: Is my logic reasonable and could this innodb_file_per_table be the reason for the slow startup? Or is there some other config variable that I can change so that each .ibd file is not scanned before the server starts accepting connections.
Any help to guide me in the right direction would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
You should upgrade to MySQL 8.0.
I was working on a system with the same problem as yours. In our case, we had about 1500 schemas per MySQL instance, and a little over 100 tables per schema. So it was about 160,000+ tables per instance. It caused lots of problems trying to use innodb_file_per_table, because the mysqld process couldn't work with that many open file descriptors efficiently. The only way to make the system work was to abandon file-per-table, and move all the tables into the central tablespace.
But that causes a different problem. Tablespaces never shrink, they only grow. The only way to shrink a tablespace is to move the tables to another tablespace, and drop the big one.
One day one of the developers added some code that used a table like a log, inserting a vast number of rows very rapidly. I got him to stop logging that data, but by then it was too late. MySQL's central tablespace had expanded to 95% of the size of the database storage, leaving too little space for binlogs and other files. And I could never shrink it without incurring downtime for our business.
I asked him, "Why were you writing to that table so much? What are you doing with the data you're storing?" He shrugged and said casually, "I dunno, I thought the data might be interesting sometime, but I had no specific use for them." I felt like strangling him.
The point of this story is that one naïve developer can cause a lot of inconvenience if you disable innodb_file_per_table.
When MySQL 8.0 was being planned, the MySQL Product Manager solicited ideas for scalability criteria. I told him about the need to support instances with a lot of tables, like 160k or more. MySQL 8.0 included an all-new implementation of internal code for handling metadata about tables, and he asked the engineers to test the scalability with up to 1 million tables (with file-per-table enabled).
So the best solution to your problem is not to turn off innodb_file_per_table. That will just lead to another kind of crisis. The best solution is to upgrade to 8.0.
Re your comment:
As far as I know, InnoDB does not open tables at startup time. It opens tables when they are first queried.
Make sure you have table_open_cache and innodb_open_files tuned for your scale. Here is some reading:
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/table-cache.html
https://www.percona.com/blog/2009/11/18/how-innodb_open_files-affects-performance/
https://www.percona.com/blog/2018/11/28/what-happens-if-you-set-innodb_open_files-higher-than-open_files_limit/
https://www.percona.com/blog/2017/10/01/one-million-tables-mysql-8-0/
I hope you are using an SSD for storage, not a spinning disk. This makes a huge difference when doing a lot of small I/O operations. SSD storage devices have been a standard recommendation for database servers for about 10 years.
Also this probably doesn't help you but I gave up on using Windows around 2007. Not as a server nor a desktop.
Our application was using MySql version 4.0.24 for a long time. We are trying to migrate it to version 5.6.27.
But, on testing the performance on 5.6.27, even the simple selects and updates are 30-40% slower when we are doing load testing. The CPU and IO speeds are much better than the older server. The storage engine of the tables is MyIsam in both versions. There's only one connection to the database. We tried the following options:
Changing storage engine to InnoDb - this reduce the performance drastically (70% slower)
Changing the innodb log size and buffer size - didn't help much
Increasing key buffer size with MyIsam storage engine for tables. - It made no difference
We tried modifying other parameters like query cache, tmp_table_size, heap_table_size. But, none of them made any difference.
Can you please let me know if there's any other option that we can try?
Here's a copy of my.cnf:
lower-case-table-names=1
myisam-recover=FORCE
key_buffer_size=2000M
Some things you can look at are whether the two servers have the same amount of RAM or not as it may be that the old server has more RAM and so can cache more things in memory.
You can also look at how are you connecting to the MySQL server - is it over a network? Is that network speed / quality different? Is one server accessed locally and the other over a network.
You tried tuning some good parameters, but in case there are ones you're missing, you can run mysql -e 'show variables' on both servers and then use a tool like Winmerge to compare the values of the two and see what might be different that you might not have thought of.
After trying multiple options, here are the configurations that worked for us. There may be other solutions as well but this worked for us.
Option 1:
Turned off the performance schema
Added a couple of jdbc connection parameters: useConfigs=maxPerformance&maintainTimeStats=false
Option 2:
Migrate to MariaDB. From a performance perspective, this worked out really well. It was giving a 5% better performance compared to mysql for our system. But, we couldn't pursue this option due to non-technical reasons.
Thank you for your inputs.
Many sites and script still use MySQL instead of PostgreSQL. I have a couple low-priority blogs and such that I don't want to migrate to another database so I'm using MySQL.
Here's the problem, their on a low-memory VPS. This means I can't enable InnoDB since it uses about 80MB of memory just to be loaded. So I have to risk running MyISAM.
With that in mind, what kind of data loss am I looking at with MyISAM? If there was a power-outage as someone was saving a blog post, would I just lose that post, or the whole database?
On these low-end-boxes I'm fine with losing some recent comments or a blog post as long as the whole database isn't lost.
MyISAM isn't ACID compliant and therefore lacks durability. It really depends on what costs more...memory to utilise InnoDB or downtime. MyISAM is certainly a viable option but what does your application require from the database layer? Using MyISAM can make life harder due to it's limitations but in certain scenarios MyISAM can be fine. Using only logical mysqldump backups will interrupt your service due to their locking nature. If you're utilising binary logging you can back these up to give you incremental backups that could be replayed to aid recovery should something corrupt in the MyISAM tables.
You might find the following MySQL Performance article of interest:
For me it is not only about table locks. Table locks is only one of MyISAM limitations you need to consider using it in production. Especially if you’re comming from “traditional” databases you’re likely to be shocked by MyISAM behavior (and default MySQL behavior due to this) – it will be corrupted by unproper shutdown, it will fail with partial statement execution if certain errors are discovered etc...
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/06/17/using-myisam-in-production/
The MySQL manual points out the types of events that can corrupt your table and there is an article explaining how to use myisamchk to repair tables. You can even issue a query to fix it.
REPAIR TABLE table;
However, there is no information about whether some types of crashes might be "unfix-able". That is the type of data loss that I can't allow even if I'm doing backups.
With a server crash your auto increment primary key can get corrupted, so your blog post IDs can jump from 122, 123, 75912371234, 75912371235 (where the server crashed after 123). I've seen it happen and it's not pretty.
You could always get another host on the same VLAN that is slaved to your database as a backup, this would reduce the risk considerably. I believe the only other options you have are:
Get more RAM for your server or kill of some services
See if your host has shared database hosting of any kind on the VLAN you can use for a small fee.
Make regular backups and be prepared for the worst.
In my humble opinion, there is no kind of data loss with MyISAM.
The risk of data loss from a power outage is due to the power outage, not the database storage mechanism.
Currently I have a Web API running on Heroku that is constantly writing information we're collecting from other data sources (currently theres about half a GB of data and it's growing very quickly). We're looking to add a reporting system on top of the current database that we can use to extract useful information out of the DB. The problem is that when we're running reports we're locking the DB and any other sites communicating with the DB are timing out. Does anyone have any solutions on how to solve this type of issue? Amazon RDS seems to have some interesting stuff with database replication but I don't know if that will solve my problems.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Be sure you are running innodb tables and not the old isam or myisam tables - innodb has row level locks which is much more scalable.
Make sure that you have indexes defined on all your joining/foreign keys... if you do joins without indexes it will grind. Also make sure you have indexes where appropriate for data that you search or sort on (as long as it is diverse data, not boolean or a small number of values)
Replication is another good idea, as you could target the reports at the secondary server in read-only mode, and it will just catch up once it unlocks. half a GB of data should not really be locking it up yet, so I'd look at the indexes and innodb first.
One solution to this is to have a replica of the database, so that your normal traffic goes to the master database, while long-running queries execute on the slave. I'm not sure how much control you get over the database on Heroku though, they may not support replication.
However, have you considered that the Heroku setup may be the problem here? A 500 MB database shouldn't really have performance issues unless you're performing really complex queries.
If you're happy using MySQL instead of Postgres, Engine Yard supports database replication (although generally it may not be as easy to use as Heroku).
How do I know when a project is just to big for MySQL and I should use something with a better reputation for scalability?
Is there a max database size for MySQL before degradation of performance occurs? What factors contribute to MySQL not being a viable option compared to a commercial DBMS like Oracle or SQL Server?
Google uses MySQL. Is your project bigger than Google?
Smart-alec comments aside, MySQL is a professional level database application. If your application puts a strain on MySQL, I bet it'll do the same to just about any other database.
If you are looking for a couple of examples:
Facebook moved to Cassandra only after it was storing over 7 Terabytes of inbox data. (Source: Lakshman, Malik: Cassandra - A Decentralized Structured Storage System.) (... Even though they were having quite a few issues at that stage.)
Wikipedia also handles hundreds of Gigabytes of text data in MySQL.
I work for a very large Internet company. MySQL can scale very, very large with very good performance, with a couple of caveats.
One problem you might run into is that an index greater than 4 gigabytes can't go into memory. I spent a lot of time once trying to improve the MySQL's full-text performance by fiddling with some index parameters, but you can't get around the fundamental problem that if your query hits disk for an index, it gets slow.
You might find some helper applications that can help solve your problem. For the full-text problem, there is Sphinx: http://www.sphinxsearch.com/
Jeremy Zawodny, who now works at Craig's List, has a blog on which he occasionally discusses the performance of large databases: http://blog.zawodny.com/
In summary, your project probably isn't too big for MySQL. It may be too big for some of the ways that you've used MySQL before, and you may need to adapt them.
Mostly it is table size.
I am assuming here that you will use the Oracle innoDB plugin for mysql as your engine. If you do not, that probably means you're using a commercial engine such as infiniDB, InfoBright for Tokutek, in which case your questions should be sent to them.
InnoDB gets a bit nasty with very large tables. You are advised to partition your tables if at all possible with very large instances. Essentially, if your (frequently used) indexes don't all fit into ram, inserts will be very slow as they need to touch a lot of pages not in ram. This cannot be worked around.
You can use the MySQL 5.1 partitioning feature if it does what you want, or partition your tables at the application level if it does not. If you can get your tables' indexes to fit in ram, and only load one table at a time, then you're on a winner.
You can use the plugin's compression to make your ram go a bit further (as the pages are compressed in ram as well as on disc) but it cannot beat the fundamental limtation.
If your table's indexes don't all (or at least MOSTLY - if you have a few indexes which are NULL in 99.99% of cases you might get away without those ones) fit in ram, insert speed will suck.
Database size is not a major issue, provided your tables individually fit in ram while you're doing bulk loading (and of course, you only load one at once).
These limitations really happen with most row-based databases. If you need more, consider a column database.
Infobright and Infinidb both use a mysql-based core and are column based engines which can handle very large tables.
Tokutek is quite interesting too - you may want to contact them for an evaluation.
When you evaluate the engine's suitability, be sure to load it with very large data on production-grade hardware. There's no point in testing it with a (e.g.) 10G database, that won't prove anything.
MySQL is a commercial DBMS, you just have the option to get the support/monitoring that is offered by Oracle or Microsoft. Or you can use community support or community provided monitoring software.
Things you should look at are not only size at operations. Critical are also:
Scenaros for backup and restore?
Maintenance. Example: SQL Server Enterprise can rebuild an index WHILE THE OLD ONE IS AVAILABLE - transparently. This means no downtime for an index rebuild.
Availability (basically you do not want to have to restoer a 5000gb database if a server dies) - mirroring preferred, replication "sucks" (technically).
Whatever you go for, be carefull with Oracle RAC (their cluster) - it is known to be "problematic" (to say it finely). SQL Server is known to be a lot cheaper, scale a lot worse (no "RAC" option) but basically work without making admins want to commit suicide every hour (the "RAC" option seems to do that). Scalability "a lot worse" still is good enough for the Terra Server (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa226316(SQL.70).aspx)
THere wer some questions here recently of people having problems rebuilding indices on a 10gb database or something.
So much for my 2 cents. I am sure some MySQL specialists will jump in on issues there.