I setup an EC2 instance with MySQL on EBS volume and setup another instance which acts as Slave for Replication. The replication set up was fine. My question is about taking snapshots of these volumes. I noticed that the tables need to be locked for the snapshot process which may cause inconvenience for the users. So, my idea is to leave the Master instance alone and take a snapshot of instance acting as slave. Is this a good idea? Is there anyone out with a similar setup and could guide me in a right way?
Also, taking snapshot of slave instance would require locking of tables. Would that mean replication will break?
Thanks in advance.
Though it's a good idea to lock the database and freeze the file system when you initiate the snapshot, the actual API call to initiate the snapshot takes a fraction of a second, so your database and file system aren't locked/frozen for long.
That said, there are a couple other considerations you did not mention:
When you attempt to create the lock on the database, it might need to wait for other statements to finish before the lock is granted. During this time, your pending lock might further statements to wait until you get and release the lock. This can cause interruptions in the flow of statements on your production database.
After you initiate the creation of the snapshot, your application/database is free to use the file system on the volume, but if you have a lot of writes, you could experience high iowait, sometimes enough to create a noticeable slowdown of your application. The reason for this is that the background snapshot process needs to copy a block to S3 before it will allow a write to that block on the active volume.
I solve the first issue by requesting a lock and timing out if it is not granted quickly. I then wait a bit and keep retrying until I get the lock. Appropriate timeouts and retry delay may vary for different database loads.
I solve the second problem by performing the frequent, consistent snapshots on the slave instead of the master, just as you proposed. I still recommend performing occasional snapshots against the master simply to improve its intrinsic durability (a deep EBS property) but those snapshots do not need to be performed with locking or freezing as you aren't going to use them for backups.
I also recommend the use of a file system that supports flushing and freezing (XFS). Otherwise, you are snapshotting locked tables in MySQL that might not yet even have all their blocks on the EBS volume yet or other parts of the file system might be modified and inconsistent in the snapshot.
If you're interested, I've published open source software that performs the best practices I've collected related to creating consistent EBS snapshots with MySQL and XFS (both optional).
http://alestic.com/2009/09/ec2-consistent-snapshot
To answer your last question, locking tables in the master will not break replication. In my snapshot software I also flush the tables with read lock to make sure that everything is on the disk being snapshotted and I add the keyword "LOCAL" so that the flush is not replicated to any potential slaves.
You can definitely take a snapshot of the slave.
From your description, it does not seem like the slave is being used operationally.
If this is the case, then the safest method of obtaining a reliable volume snapshot would be to:
Stop mysql server on the slave
start the snapshot (either through the AWS Console, or by command line)
When the snapshot is complete, restart mysqld on the slave server
Related
I've set up a slave replication of MySQL database. And for development requirements, I want to write sth into the slave database, but it would cause the broken of replication.
Since the database is huge, I don't want to restore the slave database from MySQL dump file every time after I finished some development work.
My requirement:
All the changes in the slave database can be reverted by a simple command.
The replication keeps working.
One method is to use LVM filesystem snapshots. Before you begin testing:
Stop replication.
Take an LVM snapshot.
Do your tests. Replication is still off, but data is up to date
After you finish testing:
Stop mysqld.
Restore the snapshot. This reverts all files to the state they were at the moment you created the LVM snapshot above.
Start mysqld and start replication. It will need to catch up and apply all changes since you stopped replication before your testing. This will take a little while, depending on how many changes happened on your master database.
See https://www.tecmint.com/take-snapshot-of-logical-volume-and-restore-in-lvm/ for a nice tutorial on using LVM snapshots.
This method only works if your development database instance is on Linux.
Insert the new records using a primary key that is not expected to be used by the master database (e.g. add a sufficiently large offset like 2^10 or negative numbers if allowed...).
In this way, the insertions coming from the master won't clash.
I have an AWS RDS MySQL 5.7 database with MyISAM tables that I would like to migrate to another RDS in a custom VPC, and once migrated, convert those MyISAM tables to InnoDB.
If I undertood correctly, the only way to create a correct automatic backup is using the following procedure explained here: "Automated Backups with Unsupported MySQL Storage Engines"
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/USER_WorkingWithAutomatedBackups.html#Overview.BackupDeviceRestrictions
Stop all activity to your MyISAM tables (that is, close all sessions).
You can close all sessions by calling the mysql.rds_kill command for each process that is returned from the SHOW FULL PROCESSLIST command.
Lock and flush each of your MyISAM tables
Create a snapshot of your DB instance. When the snapshot has completed, release the locks and resume activity on the MyISAM tables
Has someone done this procedure before?
How is that the snapshots are being created successfully every night from the current RDS DBInstance, even though it contains MyISAM tables?
Thanks!
The problem isn't with snapshot creation. It's what can go wrong when you actually try to use one of the snapshots.
RDS snapshots work by capturing a snapshot if your RDS instance's underlying EBS volume (you can't see this volume, but it's there -- RDS runs on EC2, with "hidden" instances and volumes).
EBS snapshots capture the entire contents of the hard drive exactly as they happened to exist at the moment in time when the snapshot process starts.
What ends up on the snapshot is essentially the same thing that you would have on a MySQL Server if you executed sudo killall -9 mysqld -- it is as if the server had halted everything, immediately, without doing any of the things it normally does to clean up for a graceful shutdown. With RDS, things are not quite that dramatic, because RDS does take some precautions, but fundamentally, this is the nature of what is happening.
When you create an RDS instance from a snapshot, the first thing that happens when the instance starts up is the same thing your hypothetical server would do when you restarted the killed MySQL Server daemon: InnoDB Crash Recovery.
InnoDB Crash Recovery
To recover from a MySQL server crash, the only requirement is to restart the MySQL server. InnoDB automatically checks the logs and performs a roll-forward of the database to the present. InnoDB automatically rolls back uncommitted transactions that were present at the time of the crash.
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/innodb-recovery.html#innodb-crash-recovery
Crash recovery is InnoDB's mechanism for bringing everything back into harmony in it internal data structures and ensure that all data is intact, exactly as your application left it. It's possible because InnoDB is a transactional storage engine. That means a lot of different things, but what it specifically means in this case is that InnoDB doesn't just change table data when you change a table. It goes through a process that can be simplified something like this:
store the proposed changes to disk¹
actually make the changes
mark the changes as complete
What this means is that until the changes are finalized, InnoDB can be interrupted and will subsequently be able to pick up where it left off, without corrupting or losing data.
MyISAM has no such mechanisms. It just writes to the data files, directly. Even if a MyISAM table isn't actively being used, it may still need to be repaired when the server comes up, to clean up its structures. In some circumstances, repairing the table can be impossible, and all or part of the data in the table will be lost.
If your MyISAM tables are flushed and locked when the snapshot occurs, they are in a quiescent state on the disk, as though the server had actually been gracefully shut down before the snapshot had occurred, so they will be stable on the snapshot.
But the snapshot process will always appear to succeed, because the snapshot is just duplicating whatever is on the disk, as it appears at the moment in time when the snapshot gets underway.
The problem is that what the snapshot captured may not be usable, and you have no way of knowing whether the snapshot will be fully viable.
¹ Note that the first step, "store the proposed changes to disk" is related to the system variable innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit which makes the system slower if set to 1 but also is the safest setting, because your query doesn't actually succeed until that first step is done. A setting of 2 is still reasonably safe, because it still writes the changes but continues without requiring that the operating system confirm that they have actually been written to the hard drive before your query returns success... but in a crash, a transaction your application thinks was committed may or may not have survived.
Currently my database is almost 20 GB big and still growing.
I'm taking a daily backup with mysqldump and it's getting really slow.
So slow that in the meanwhile new connections stack up and eventually cause this error:
SQLSTATE[HY000] [1040] Too many connections
(I could improve the amount of connections that's accepted but that won't do anything because the connections are still just frozen, waiting for the backup to complete, which will lead to timeout)
I've been reading up on some options to improve the speed and this is what I've found:
option --quick (Will probably help)
option --single-transaction (Will prevent tables from being locked, but may cause database to become incorrect)
Master-Slave replication (Probably the best thing I could do, one problem, I have only one server available)
The master-slave replication really sounds like it's the best option since I can stop the slave from updating, take the backup, and let it resume syncing. The problem is I only have one fysical machine to work with.
I know that I can set up multiple mysql instances on this one server. The question is: Is it wise to do so?
The slave is really only used to generate that backup file (which will be copied to a different disk on the network) so that the master can stay live.
if you use just innodb - try xtrabackup.
if you use both myisam and innodb - flush + lvm snapshot + file-level copy might work for you.
indeed replication slave for backups is good idea as well. just remember to periodically check data consistency between the master and the slave.
I'm currently using mysqldump to back up databases that are growing rapidly in size. Though I run it late at night, there have been occasional problems when it happens to run during a moment of high traffic (which happens at night sometimes). For example, last night one of my sites locked up just after the time of the database backup with a completely full (and non-clearing) processlist.
Does anyone have a suggestion for a better way to approach this? Putting the site in a temporary maintenance state during backup is not an option as the goal is to maximize availability (some sql dumps take awhile). One idea that comes to mind is to run both master and slave copies and shut down + back up the slave copy, leaving the master copy alone during the process. Hopefully there is a simpler solution though - I'd rather not run a slave copy for backup purposes only unless absolutely necessary. Any suggestions?
Thanks.
Two thoughts:
run the slave. If nothing else, it gives you a warm spare for your production traffic in case of failure. You can also run reports and tools from it, freeing up cycles from your production server.
get to innodb and use mysqldump --single-transaction (see man page)
Good luck!
I use Percona Xtrabackup, which is similar to InnoDB Hot Backup with more functionality and is distributed for free. Xtrabackup takes snapshots without locking innodb tables and will record the current master logfile info and, if requested, the slave info if you are taking a backup from a slave.
I would recommend running a slave and doing a backup like this or with mysqldump. The slave gives you a hot backup that you can quickly switch over to and be up and running within minutes if your master blows up due to a hardware issue or various software or user error issues that take out the server. The backup with xtrabackup or mysqldump gives you a backup that you can use to restore data in case you accidentally drop a table or delete some rows you shouldn't have, since the replicated server wouldn't save you there.
I have a scenario where there are multiple mysql 4.x servers. These databases were supposed to be replicating to another server. After checking things out on a slave it appears that this slave has not replicated any databases in some time.
Some of these databases are > 4G in size and one is 43G(which resides on another server). Has anyone out there replicated databases without creating a snapshot to copy over to a slave? I cannot shutdown the master server because of the downtime. It will probably take over an hour and 40 minutes to create a snapshot. So this is out of the question.
I was going to perform a load data from master on the slave to pull everything from scratch. Any idea how long this will take on databases ranging from 1-4G and the 43G database will be for another day. All of the tables on the master are myIsam so I don't think I will have a problem with the load from master method.
What are the best methods on the slave to clean things up or reset things so I can just start from a clean slate?
Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance
You need a snapshot to start replication. Snapshots require either the database to be locked (at least) read-only. So you can have a consistent place to start from.
Downtime is a necessary thing, customers usually understand it as long as it doesn't happen too often.