[mythtv-users] ramfs for mysql
linux at thehobsons.co.uk
Thu Jan 5 14:13:17 UTC 2012
Raymond Wagner wrote:
>Then you have bad information, that shouldn't exist at all, or should
>exist as a side note as "this is wrong" or "never do this". Running
>MySQL in a tmpfs is of the last type. It has been documented on the
>wiki several times in the past, and it has been rolled back or the page
>deleted each time.
Then I'd suggest the people deleting the page are idiots, and the
sort of arrogant/aggressive people that give free software/open
source projects such a bad reputation in some circles.
The fact that a page has appeared several times means that there
**ARE** people who are thinking of this. As others have said, isn't
it better to leave it there and put a BIG disclaimer at the top
saying why it's bad ? At least then, people could find it, see the
disclaimer and either : know that it's bad and forget about it, or
make their own mind up as to whether it is a suitable option for them.
Instead, you seem to prefer hiding such information so people will
guess in the dark, potentially oblivious to the risks and ways to
>But I only have the one hard drive. ---- So go buy another to put the
>OS and database on, or scrounge up an old spare drive from somewhere.
>But I don't have slots on my board, or I don't have room in my case.
>---- So buy a better machine to run your backend on. That's why we
>recommend running the master backend on a real PC rather than a tiny
>I won't do it, I refuse. ---- So turn off barriers, and continue
>operation as people did for years before switching to ext4 where
>barriers were enabled by default. Live with the tiny risk that if you
>happen to be committing a transaction to disk the very instant the
>machine crashes, you end up with potential filesystem damage, and a
>database that needs repair.
>There is no situation where stuffing a MySQL server into volatile
>storage is the best solution.
Bollocks to that last bit. In effect you are saying that "if you
won't buy 'approved' hardware, then p**s off" - that is the inference
someone could draw. Refuse to support such setups, fine; but I really
don't think it's your place to proscribe how people may (try to) use
There are many many reasons why someone may wish to try things out on
suboptimal hardware - I myself ran Myth backend for several years as
a Xen guest on an underpowered machine, but I did that knowing the
limitations and being prepared to live with them (until such time as
I could afford/justify the additional hardware). I now have a
dedicated backend, but had I not run Myth for a while on suboptimal
hardware, then I'd probably have gone a different route altogether.
I'd say that running the DB in ram is no worse provided the person
doing it understands the limitations. You seem to think that it's
better to run a setup that can **CORRUPT** your database than to run
a setup where the worst case is you lose transactions since your last
backup point. Hmm, choose between unknown and potentially incidious
corruption, or having your DB rolled back to a known good situation ?
So in summary, I think your position, and attitude, is just plain wrong.
Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed
author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as
Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.
More information about the mythtv-users