"Philip Stoev" <pstoev@askmonty.org> writes:
The test is basically the same you already did for non-blocking `mysqldump --master-data --single-transaction` used to provision a slave, but using XtraBackup instead of mysqldump.
Done, a test was created and installed in buildbot, where it passes. I am using xtradb from RPM.
Cool, great stuff!
Now, to do this we would need to be able to use XtraBackup. I am wondering if it wouldn't make sense to at the same time include XtraBackup into MariaDB? XtraBackup seems to me quite mature already, and a very good product besides. It is arguably long overdue for us to include it.
Including XtraBackup means including in MariaDB a yet another piece of software that, even if it is of reasonable quality, has a different development and release cycle:
- we have 3 different innnodb directories, innodb, innodb_plugin and xtradb - they have 3 different xtrabackup binaries, one for 5.0, one for 5.1 and one for 5.5 - they provide 5 patches to patch Innodb with. As discussed in IRC, I tried the most intuitive combination and it did not patch correctly. I did not try your renaming trick; - in launchpad, they have a bunch of trees: a trunk tree , a 1.6 tree and a windows tree, both of which have seen pushes in the last 1 week
Yes, those are good points. So if users can just install xtrabackup stand-alone like from a Percona package, that might actually be better than including it in MariaDB. Once we get into distros, it will in any case be seamless, users will just eg. apt-get install xtrabackup, and it will not matter from where it comes. (and we could depends: or recommends: it from the mariadb-server package). Thanks! - Kristian.