I can''t seem to get MySQL to run with the database on Lustre. I get an error 38 ''Function on implemented'' and I also get a ''unable to lock file ./ibdata1'' error. The file is created by mysql, but the service won''t start up. I have not disabled locking on our Lustre file systems, so I''m not sure what the problem can be. Thanks, Robert LeBlanc College of Life Sciences Computer Support Brigham Young University leblanc@byu.edu (801)422-1882
I''ve seen this too. My workaround has been to disable innodb (add "skip-innodb" to the mysqld section of my.cnf). If you have to use innodb, then I''d be curious what the solution is. Jim McCusker Robert LeBlanc wrote:> I can''t seem to get MySQL to run with the database on Lustre. I get an error > 38 ''Function on implemented'' and I also get a ''unable to lock file > ./ibdata1'' error. The file is created by mysql, but the service won''t start > up. > > I have not disabled locking on our Lustre file systems, so I''m not sure what > the problem can be. > > Thanks, > > Robert LeBlanc > College of Life Sciences Computer Support > Brigham Young University > leblanc@byu.edu > (801)422-1882 > > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss@clusterfs.com > https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > >
Hello! On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 02:57:40PM -0600, Robert LeBlanc wrote:> I can''t seem to get MySQL to run with the database on Lustre. I get an error > 38 ''Function on implemented'' and I also get a ''unable to lock file > ./ibdata1'' error. The file is created by mysql, but the service won''t start > up. > I have not disabled locking on our Lustre file systems, so I''m not sure what > the problem can be.It is disabled by default these days. You can mount with -o flock to get full cluster-wide locking support or -o localflock to just have local-node consistent locking. I wonder what is the point of running mysql off cluster filesystem? Do you plan to access same database files from several nodes by running local copy of mysql on every on those of nodes? Bye, Oleg
I run it on Lustre because I am using VMWare to create virtual servers, including a MySQL server. I don''t want the data files stored inside the vm hard disk image, so it is on the Lustre share. The VMWare images are also stored on Lustre, by the way. Jim Oleg Drokin wrote:> Hello! > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 02:57:40PM -0600, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > >> I can''t seem to get MySQL to run with the database on Lustre. I get an error >> 38 ''Function on implemented'' and I also get a ''unable to lock file >> ./ibdata1'' error. The file is created by mysql, but the service won''t start >> up. >> I have not disabled locking on our Lustre file systems, so I''m not sure what >> the problem can be. >> > > It is disabled by default these days. You can mount with -o flock to > get full cluster-wide locking support or -o localflock to just have > local-node consistent locking. > I wonder what is the point of running mysql off cluster filesystem? Do you > plan to access same database files from several nodes by running local copy > of mysql on every on those of nodes? > > Bye, > Oleg > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss@clusterfs.com > https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > >
On 8/11/07, Oleg Drokin <green@clusterfs.com> wrote:> I wonder what is the point of running mysql off cluster filesystem? Do you > plan to access same database files from several nodes by running local copy > of mysql on every on those of nodes?You''re right as far as replication is concerned and failing over the master write node for MySQL. However, having multiple slaves do read requests off a shared file system with writes going intelligently from the application side to a single node makes lustre quite viable for MySQL. -- Mustafa A. Hashmi mahashmi@gmail.com
On 8/11/07 4:53 PM, "Oleg Drokin" <green@clusterfs.com> wrote:> Hello! > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 02:57:40PM -0600, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >> I can''t seem to get MySQL to run with the database on Lustre. I get an error >> 38 ''Function on implemented'' and I also get a ''unable to lock file >> ./ibdata1'' error. The file is created by mysql, but the service won''t start >> up. >> I have not disabled locking on our Lustre file systems, so I''m not sure what >> the problem can be. > > It is disabled by default these days. You can mount with -o flock to > get full cluster-wide locking support or -o localflock to just have > local-node consistent locking. > I wonder what is the point of running mysql off cluster filesystem? Do you > plan to access same database files from several nodes by running local copy > of mysql on every on those of nodes? > > Bye, > Oleg >We need to have MySQL fail over and since we already have a low traffic LUN set-up with Lustre that is shared and fault-tolerant we want to put the database files on it instead of carving out another LUN for the low traffic database. We are only going to access the files from one node at a time. Any pitfalls I should know about if I enable locking on two nodes like large performance degradation? I take it that the localflock is a client option and the flock is an OST mount option? Thanks, Robert LeBlanc College of Life Sciences Computer Support Brigham Young University leblanc@byu.edu (801)422-1882
Hello! On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 08:23:34AM -0600, Robert LeBlanc wrote:> We need to have MySQL fail over and since we already have a low traffic LUN > set-up with Lustre that is shared and fault-tolerant we want to put the > database files on it instead of carving out another LUN for the low traffic > database. We are only going to access the files from one node at a time.Ah, I see. So you do not really need full cluster-wide flock support, it seems.> Any pitfalls I should know about if I enable locking on two nodes like large > performance degradation? I take it that the localflock is a client optionNo, the only pitfall I am aware of are some bugs, if you need cluster-wide locking support, you need to apply patches from bug 13103 and from bug 5135 (to 1.6.1 lustre release).> and the flock is an OST mount option?Both localflock and flock are client mount options. Bye, Oleg
>> and the flock is an OST mount option? > > Both localflock and flock are client mount options. >Hmm, I try localflock and it won''t mount with an error in the logs: LustreError: Unknown option ''localflock'', won''t mount. I can mount it with ''flock'', but I don''t want cluster-wide locking. Any problem with just mounting my two nodes with ''flock'' instead of ''localflock''? Thanks, Robert Robert LeBlanc College of Life Sciences Computer Support Brigham Young University leblanc@byu.edu (801)422-1882
Hello! On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 08:54:32AM -0600, Robert LeBlanc wrote:> >> and the flock is an OST mount option? > > Both localflock and flock are client mount options. > Hmm, I try localflock and it won''t mount with an error in the logs: > LustreError: Unknown option ''localflock'', won''t mount.Hm, I am not sure what lustre version you use. 1.6.1 certainly has it, as does 1.4.10 You can grab the patch from bug 11563 if you need it and do not want to use newer lustre (not sure why would you want to do that, though). Bye, Oleg
On 8/13/07 9:18 AM, "Oleg Drokin" <green@clusterfs.com> wrote:> Hello! > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 08:54:32AM -0600, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>>> and the flock is an OST mount option? >>> Both localflock and flock are client mount options. >> Hmm, I try localflock and it won''t mount with an error in the logs: >> LustreError: Unknown option ''localflock'', won''t mount. > > Hm, I am not sure what lustre version you use. 1.6.1 certainly has it, > as does 1.4.10 > > You can grab the patch from bug 11563 if you need it and do not want to > use newer lustre (not sure why would you want to do that, though). >I''m not sure why it is not working. I''m using 1.6.0.1. This is what I put on the command line. mount -t lustre head2-1@o2ib:head2-2@o2ib:/local -o localflock /usr/local I''m just using flock right now and I''ve got MySQL running with innodb. Any problem running flock on just a couple of nodes? I''ll see about 1.6.1, didn''t catch that it was released yet. I''ve been so busy trying to get things ready for our cluster delivery tomorrow. Thanks, Robert Robert LeBlanc College of Life Sciences Computer Support Brigham Young University leblanc@byu.edu (801)422-1882
Hello! On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 09:40:01AM -0600, Robert LeBlanc wrote:> >>>> and the flock is an OST mount option? > >>> Both localflock and flock are client mount options. > >> Hmm, I try localflock and it won''t mount with an error in the logs: > >> LustreError: Unknown option ''localflock'', won''t mount. > > Hm, I am not sure what lustre version you use. 1.6.1 certainly has it, > > as does 1.4.10 > > You can grab the patch from bug 11563 if you need it and do not want to > > use newer lustre (not sure why would you want to do that, though). > I''m not sure why it is not working. I''m using 1.6.0.1. This is what I put on > the command line.1.6.0.1 does not have this patch yet. You should grab 1.6.1 from our download site (the announcement is not out yet as it turned out).> Any problem running flock on just a couple of nodes? I''ll see about 1.6.1,There are some bugs most annoying of whichh - 13103 might lead to crashes in situation where multiple nodes try to lock sme file in parallel. Bye, Oleg