- developers - lists.mariadb.org

Re: [Maria-developers] [Maria-discuss] MariaDB encryption
by Jonas Oreland 23 Sep '14

23 Sep '14

Hi again, > What is the type of license of your code? I asked internally about license, and it seems like we releasing dual gpl2/apache licensed code. > I would like to know, which interfaces from maria-DB you are using. I don't 100% understand the question. We didn't write any actual encryption code, but used the one provided in openssl. Other than that, we didn't really "use interfaces", but rather added/modified functionality/interfaces here and there. Can you be more specific ? /Jonas On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Elmar Eperiesi-Beck <elmar(a)eperiesi-beck.de > wrote: > Hi! > We (eperi) would be glad to do a joined work with Google. > Our solution works with MS-SQL, Oracle and other DBs and we are currently > porting it to MariaDB - and - as Monty said - its never to late to put some > sources together and make the best for the open source community. > > What is the type of license of your code? > > Jonas, I am looking forward to connect to you directly. > > Regards > Elmar > > Hi! > > > Hi Jonas, > > (same Jonas we know from NDBCLUSTER? :-) Good to see you again) > > > > On 6 Jun 2014, at 02:31, Jonas Oreland <jonaso(a)google.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi there, > >> I read this blog post > >> > http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2014/05/for-your-eyes-only-or-adding-better.… > >> and wanted to inform you that we at Google has developed > on-disk/block-level encryption for Innodb, aria (as used by temporary > tables), binlogs and temp-files. > >> The code is not yet published, but we expect it to be within a few > weeks or so. > >> We (of course?) think that it would be better if you instead of > developing new code > >> spent the time testing/reviewing ours. > > We are out course happy to do this! > > >> I'm happy to answer questions on the topic, > >> and will let you know once we've published it. > > The main question I have about the Innodb encryption is if it based on the > compression code we did for fusion-io? > The idea we had on our side was that by using the new compression hooks we > could add encryption with very little changes to the Innodb code. > Looking forward to when you are ready to publish the code so we can > discuss your changes in detail. > > > This is great news! > > > > From what I gather, from Monty's blog post (and a 1:1 we had some time > back), this is something done by a partner/external company that has a > mostly OSS solution, that we should integrate into 10.1 > > Yes, that's correct. It I would have known that Google was working on > encryption I would have included them in my discussions with eperi. > Fortunately it's not yet too late to do this. > I am sure eperi would like to work on the Google code as a base! > > > That said, Google's release of something that works for InnoDB, Aria, > binlogs, temp files (and presumably not too hard to add for MyISAM) is > something we should definitely review and target for 10.1 > > Yes! > > Regards, > Monty > > >

3 21

[Maria-developers] MDEV-4682
by Roberto Spadim 23 Sep '14

23 Sep '14

Hi guys, could check MDEV-4682? it's done to review thanks -- Roberto Spadim

2 2

[Maria-developers] Switching on use of components in Jira
by Rasmus Johansson 23 Sep '14

23 Sep '14

Hello all, I will later today switch on the usage of Components in Jira. Components are a way of grouping issues inside a project. The idea is to map every issue in Jira, being it a bug or a new feature to a component which describes to what area of MariaDB the issue belongs. For example a bug in Aria would be marked with the component "Storage Engine - Aria". Currently there are 37 components defined in Jira that should cover many areas, but I'm sure there are a few missing. There is one generic to which you can assign issues that doesn't fall into any other category, called OTHER. I'll include the list of components here in the end of this email. * What do you need to do? * The Component field will be a mandatory field when closing an issue. Therefore if a component (or several components) haven't been specified earlier for an issue, you'll have to choose at least one when closing an issue. The field has autocompletion so if you start typing for example "Galera" you'll be presented with the alternatives "Galera", "Galera Arbitrator garbd", and "Galera SST". If you don't find a suitable component then choose the component called "OTHER". * What is the benefit of using components? * It's a way of organizing issues inside a project, so that you easily can pull out all issues related to a certain area of MariaDB, e.g. if I wanted to know all bug fixes for replication I would click on the Replication component and get a list. There is the possibility to set up automatic assignees based on components and components can be used in filters and reports throughout Jira. I hope this won't be a burden. All feedback is of course welcome. BR, Rasmus * Components in the MariaDB Server project in JIRA * Data Definition - Alter Table Data Definition - Procedure Data Definition - Temporary Data Manipulation - Insert Delayed Data Manipulation - Subquery Dynamic Columns Events Full-text Search Galera Galera Arbitrator garbd Galera SST GIS Locale Settings OTHER Platform Debian Platform FreeBSD Platform Power Platform Windows Plugin - Audit Plugins Query Cache Replication Show Profile sql_error_log SSL Storage Engine - Aria Storage Engine - Cassandra Storage Engine - Connect Storage Engine - InnoDB Storage Engine - OQGRAPH Storage Engine - Spider Storage Engine - XtraDB Storage Enging - TokuDB Time zones Triggers Views XML Functions

3 4

[Maria-developers] Close some MDEV
by Roberto Spadim 22 Sep '14

22 Sep '14

Hi guys, could close these mdev: 1)MDEV-4599 (it will be implemented at mdev-4584) 2)MDEV-4581 (it will be implemented at mdev-4682) Please check this mdev-4682 too, i sent a patch via github, there's an option that should be implemented at compile time to turn stats on/off i didn't checked how to implement it yet, if anyone could help me :) it must set a macro #define QUERY_CACHE_QC_INFO_PLUGIN 1 at "configure" time, maybe via cmake gui or something like it maybe i should change QUERY_CACHE_QC_INFO_PLUGIN to QUERY_CACHE_INCLUDE_STATS to easier understand of macro definitions, help is wellcome here -- Roberto Spadim

1 0

Re: [Maria-developers] [Commits] Rev 4376: MDEV-6676: Speculative parallel replication in http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~maria-captains/maria/10.0
by Jonas Oreland 22 Sep '14

22 Sep '14

> > Intermediate commit. Patch is far from complete, but this small patch was > nevertheless sufficient to be able to sysbench-0.4 OLTP with full > parallelisation. > "full parallelisation" does that mean that X threads on master make slave achieve k*X higher throughput ? /Jonas

4 16

[Maria-developers] Need suggestions for benchmarking MDEV-6676 parallel replication
by Kristian Nielsen 22 Sep '14

22 Sep '14

Hi Axel, I'd like to ask your advice on some benchmarking of MDEV-6676. MDEV-6676 is about extending in-order parallel replication to be significantly more aggressive, and potentially get a _lot_ more parallelism on the slave. The basic idea is to just try to run _everything_ in parallel. If there is a conflict, the code will roll back the erroneous transaction and retry it, this time not in parallel. I have run a basic sysbench 0.5 OLTP on my laptop, and results were promising. However, I need something better than that. My main problem is that often when I run write-load benchmarks, the bottleneck is InnoDB log write or purge, or something like that. So the load does not really scale with multiple threads, even on the master, and parallel replication is not really that useful even if perfectly implemented. So do you have a suggestion for a write-load benchmark that scales well for medium concurrency, like 8-32 threads or something like that? And for a machine on which to run it? The best benchmark I think would be one that is I/O bound on a working set that is not in memory, on a machine with a disk subsystem that has good throughput at high concurrency. Because this should resemble the real-world use cases where parallel replication is most needed. Do you have any experience on running such benchmarks, and do we have any machines that could be used? Often the benchmarks I see in blogs are in-memory... Or do you have another suggestion? Thanks, - Kristian.

1 0

[Maria-developers] MDEV-4682 revision
by Roberto Spadim 20 Sep '14

20 Sep '14

hi guys, i sent some patch about qc_info plugin ( https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-4682) via pull request at github (https://github.com/MariaDB/server/pull/6) could anyone check if it's ok? i included test file changes there's only one thing todo, that's include/not include statistics inside query cache, since it increase memory use, i think could be nice at runtime change this variable and include statistics on/off (more info inside mdev) -- Roberto Spadim

1 0

[Maria-developers] doubt about tests files
by Roberto Spadim 20 Sep '14

20 Sep '14

hi guys! i git cloned the last verison of mariadb from github, but i didn't found test files is it outside mariadb github source? -- Roberto Spadim

1 1

Re: [Maria-developers] [Commits] c8496e4: %B
by Roberto Spadim 19 Sep '14

19 Sep '14

working =P 2014-09-19 18:04 GMT-03:00 Igor Babaev <igor(a)askmonty.org>: > revision-id: c8496e48c4b7c35e9702f98daa19cdb4ef190097 > parent(s): 0486b3b796ad7ec597bff775da248096731c58d5 > committer: Igor Babaev > branch nick: 10.1-test-commit > timestamp: 2014-09-19 13:47:43 -0700 > message: > > %B > --- > sql/opt_range.cc | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sql/opt_range.cc b/sql/opt_range.cc > index 27e20c0..c35bde6 100644 > --- a/sql/opt_range.cc > +++ b/sql/opt_range.cc > @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ > along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software > Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 > USA */ > // test commit in git > +test 2 > + > /* > TODO: > Fix that MAYBE_KEY are stored in the tree so that we can detect use > _______________________________________________ > commits mailing list > commits(a)mariadb.org > https://lists.askmonty.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/commits > -- Roberto Spadim SPAEmpresarial Eng. Automação e Controle

1 0

[Maria-developers] Free Software Foundation address
by Matej Mužila 17 Sep '14

17 Sep '14

Hi, the address of the Free Software Foundation has changed and I think itshould be changed in sources too. Nowdays the correct one is: Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA http://www.fsf.org/about/contact/ Regards Matej Mužila

1 0